LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



%ji. tom¥ Tfc......... 

bW ~XA/4 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



CLOSE COMMUNION: 

OB, 

Plea for the Dunkard Peoplk 



IN TWO PARTS. 

n 



^ b - 



t 



BY LAN DON WEST. 



DAYTON, OHIO: 



H. J. KURTZ, PRINTER. 



19$ 



|T 1IE U***** 

of cowy** 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, 

BY LANDON WEST, 
in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



PREFACE, 



To all who love the truth is the present 
effort offered upon its me? its, be they what 
they may. If any are made wiser or bet- 
ter, the humble wish of the writer has been 
realized. But if not so much as this is 
obtained, the fond hope is still entertained 
that no one will be made worse, or here- 
after see less beauty in the word of Jesus 
than before. That its style is not perfect, 
the writer is fully aware, but this is not 
what he aimed to show forth. His aim 
was to present truth, and he feels that in 
proportion as this point has been reached, 
in the same ratio has his work been pre- 
sented aright, but no further. The style 
and all may be quite imperfect, but the 
truth, when reached, is perfect. To that 
point, when made, he trusts his effort will 
be received by all. 

Landon West, 

Mat, 1880. 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction 7 

CHAPTER I. 
Our Faith 13 

CHAPTER II. 
Communion, what it implies 18 

CHAPTER III. 
Church Relation 20 

CHAPTER IV. 
Church Claims 23 

CHAPTER V. 

But one Standard 36 

CHAPTER VI. 
Which to take 39 

CHAPTER VII. 
Who is Orthodox? 42 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Furity to bo sought 54 

CHAPTER IX. 
It is Deceptive 59 

CHAPTER X. 
Dangerous to Piety 63 



D CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XI. 
Law is set aside 69 

CHAPTER XII. 
It is Partial 77 

CHAPTER XIII. 
There is no Standard for it 94 

CHAPTER XIV. 
By it we make ourselves the Judge of others 99 

CHAPTER XV. 
It allows too much 112 

CHAPTER XVI. 
It allows too much 128 

CHAPTER XVII. 
No Good can result from it 137 

CHAPTER XVIII. 
Special Reasons 145 

CHAPTER XIX. 
Very Special Reasons 177 

CHAPTER XX. 

Conclusion 185 



INTRODUCTION, 



The faith and practice of the people 
commonly known as "Dunkards," whe 
taken as a whole, seem to have a very gen- 
eral approval from all men. But when this 
faith is by them made subject to a close 
analysis, — a description of all its parts, — 
it is then quite common for us to be cen- 
sured because our views upon soma subjects 
are not so liberal as are the views of many 
others. To approve the right and to con- 
demn the wrong is most proper, but can 
not be done safely without investigation. 
But to condemn the right, and that without 
a hearing, is a sad mistake. And to condemn 
our people, or any others, without knowing 
their reasons for any view or practice, is, 
to say the least, an unwise conclusion. It 
is to overlook the advice to "Prove all 
things; hold fast that which is good." 
I. Thess. 5 : 21. This word at once ad- 
dresses itself to our intelligence, and as- 
sumes that we know that some things are 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

good and that others are not. It shows, 
too, that, in case we do doubt the propriety 
of any act, or thing, it should at once be 
tested, — proved by us, — before we accept 
it, or any part of it. It lays upon us the 
duty to test " all things," and, after such 
test is made, to accept of all that is good, 
no matter where it is found, or who gives 
it; but to reject -all that is bad, let it come 
from whence it may. Two duties are 
here imposed, the one not being enough; 
and to accept of one and not the other, 
is to reject this counsel altogether. 

1. All things should be tested or proved. 
The propriety of such a course is at once 
seen in all matters of worldly business, and 
as we may as easily be mistaken in our 
views of religion as in any other matter, 
and as the mistake is so much the more 
fetal than in things of the world, the 
proving or testing of our religion does at 
once become a question of the gravest im- 
portance. It is not work for time ; it is 
for eternity. And it should not be confined 
to those things alone which we may doubt, 
but applied to those as well which we may 
now believe and accept. The faith we now 
hold should as well be tested as that which 
we may seek. : And the Word tells us to 
" Examine yourselves whether ye be in the 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

faith; prove your own selves/' II. Cor. 
13 : 5. It can not be other than pleasure 
to us all to know that the little religion we 
now have, if it have the sanction of the 
Word upon it, has also the approval of 
God. But if we do not find either our 
faith or practice sanctioned by the Word, 
then we may be assured that our religion 
is not ordained of God, and should there- 
fore not ask his approval of it. 

2. The duty to follow the proving of 
all things'Ks quite as important as the first. 
It is to "hold fast that which is good." 
Reason is one witness, and often good, but 
not always sure, and should be applied to 
all proper subjects and always in a proper 
manner. But the Bible is our main wit- 
ness, the faithful and the true one, and is 
always good and always sure. It tells 
nothing, promises nothing, and proves 
nothing but what is both good and sure ; 
and we need all of it, but we need no more 
to insure to us the favor of Heaven's King. 
Its word is the mind of the Eternal One, 
and when once obtained should be held in 
preference to any and all others. We are 
then right. Other aids may be used as 
helps to obtain the truth, and should be 
applied as such, but should not in any case 
be allowed to %et the Word aside. 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

The duties enjoined by the command- 
ment above cited are such as to require of 
us to reject nothing without at least some 
investigation, and to accept of nothing 
without some proof that it is good. When 
proof is thus obtained we are to accept it and 
then hold it fast; but if not good, or with- 
out proof, to be let go at once, even if it be 
the faith of our childhood. This great and 
general rule applies as well to our faith as 
to anything else, and is the only\aure f test 
we can have that we have the right (thing 
and have it in the right way. By this rule 
is the proving of all things, the holding of 
all good ones, but the keeping of no others. 

I now close the introduction by saying 
that the Bible is the standard of truth, the 
book of God's inspiration, and by it, and it 
alone, we can soon learn whether or not our 
faith and our practice are both what they 
should be, and can know if we are in the 
faith or not, and when we learn that we 
are not in it, can very soon learn how to 
get there. Here is a wide field for the full 
play of faith and hope, and work and 
prayer, and we do hope all who love the 
truth as it is in Jesus- will labor much to 
improve it. I am aware that my introduc- 
tion is quite lengthy for so small a work, 
but I give it thus to show to all of its r«a- 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

ders that we, as a people, regard the Bible- 
as we do no other book or books — greater 
and better than any or all of them. I 
think this is already shown. And as there- 
are many instances in the following pages- 
where I aim to make a further application 
of this truth, I here try to present the im- 
portance of Bible supremacy, not only on 
this subject, but on all others pertaining to- 
the people and the worship of God. 

And, further, as I think this little work 
is more apt than other books might be, to- 
come under the notice of those most inter- 
ested in the subject of religion, and of 
those, too, who may not at all be acquainted 
with the faith and practice of our people,, 
the present effort is presented the more- 
cheerfully, hoping that all may at least ad- 
mit that I am candid in what I thus trjr 
to do. I fondly hope, too, that all will ad- 
mit that we are also safe in adhering as- 
closely as possible to that Word which was 
spoken from heaven. We all want to be- 
safe in life, in death, and also in the great 
hereafter, and to gain this we try to do our 
humble part. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 



PART I. 

REASONS FOR CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER I, 



OUR FAITH. 



I stated in the introduction that the faith 
of our people is not so often censured, as is* 
their practice. Why this is so I can not. 
now say, but I regard it as a very imper- 
fect decision, for, in my view, the practical 
part of one's life is the only positive proof 
of his faith, and the extent of it, that he- 
can in any way give. If one's faith can 
in any other way than by his life be shown 
at all, I know not how. This may be con- 
sidered a weakness in us, but it is one of 
the greatest peculiarities of our people, viz., 
to show our faith by our works. See alsa 
James 2: 14-26. 



14 CLOSE COMMUNION*. 

To illustrate this thought more fully I 
cite a few facts: Our people believe that 
the Word enjoins the anointing of the sick 
whenever it is called for. This call is often 
made among us, and the deed is as often 
done, and that too for the same objects 
named in the Word, namely, the pardon 
of sin, the raising up, and the saving of 
the sick. See Mark 6 : 13 ; 16 : 18 ; Acts 3": 
6-16 ; James 5 : 14, 15. The Word urges / 
too, that we pray for one another and for 
;all men (I. Tim. 2:1; James 5 : 16), and 
this part also we try to make practical 
throughout, even to the offering of a peti- 
tion for our enemies. Matt. 5 : 44 ; Luke 
6: 27. 

We also believe that baptism by trine 
immersion in water is the only valid, apos- 
tolic baptism in existence where water is 
used at all as an element. This view of 
the subject is not often censured, but our 
■practice is very frequently condemned be- 
'cause we will not accept any and every 
•other form of baptism. In this we are not 
faulted for having this one way, but we are 
faulted because we have no other way. 

We meet many who agree, with us, that 
feet-washing is a commandment by Jesus, 
^and yet these same condemn our whole 
♦church because we w r ill not agree that any 



CLOSE COMMUNION. . 15 

come fully up to the standard of truth 
unless the example and command in the 
thirteenth chapter of John is literally fol- 
lowed out. 

I could cite to other views of our people 
which are approved in precept by our 
neighbor professors, but in which we are 
sometimes very roughly censured for the 
practical observance ot the same; but I 
think these are enough to show that we 
are fully aware of some of the inconsisten- 
cies that surround us. Whv there should 
be this very apparent inconsistency in the 
conduct of others toward us I can not, and 
of course will not, try to account for. 

But we come now to consider one feature 
of our people's faith both the theory and 
practice ol which are condemned by a 
majority of the religious denominations of 
to-day. That feature is what is known as 
Close Communion. I think the views of 
our people upon this subject are not well 
understood, especially by strangers to us. 
This reason alone I hold to be sufficient to 
call forth from our brotherhood an essay 
upon the subject. I know not what argu- 
ments and how many may have been urged 
by others heretofore in favor of this prac- 
tice, whether the same as ours or not, but 
what I now give are, I think, particularly 



16 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

suited to the doctrines and faith of our 
own people, and for them only do I thus 
aim to speak. 

The sentiment that favors close or re- 
stricted communion is very generally con- 
demned as a narrow and selfish one, and I 
grant that such would indeed be true if 
there were no higher motive to prompt it 
than mere self-indulgence and sectarian 
bigotry. In that case we all say the less 
we have of such a spirit the better for the 
world. But in our case I will say that 
such is not the feeling. It can not be the 
indulgence of self, for that is often denied. 
It is not merely that we may exclude other 
sects, for it often comes within our own 
fold. And as we regard the reasons for 
close communion to apply with peculiar fit- 
ness to our own people, it is but proper, we 
think, that we should be heard on this sub- 
ject. We claim to be a peculiar people in 
more than one thing, and for that reason the 
arguments that favor us in this may not 
favor any other, and of course will not be 
presented by them. And whilst they may 
not apply all that we do, yet we feel to ap- 
ply all general arguments, as well as those 
in particular. And should our view of this 
subject come to the notice of those who 
favor open communion* I ask them to con- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 17 

sider not only our objections made against 
it, but also to consider the faith and prac- 
tice of the people who make them. If this 
be done I have no fears as to the result, 
for special conditions must always produce 
special results. 

As to the feeling had by many against 
our people's practice, I say, we know that- 
many who are friendly tell us that to them 
close communion appears very selfish and 
unchristian. I do believe that such would 
not be the feeling if the reasons for our 
practice were plainly set forth. To do so 
is the object of the present effort, and I 
invite a careful investigation of the subject 
by all those who feel to have any interest 
in the matter. Prove all of it; hold fast 
only to that which is good. 



18 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER II. 

'COMMUNION, WHAT IT IMPLIES. 

My first effort will be to show what we 
■understand to be implied in the act of com- 
munion. Worship with one another and 
the partaking of the sacred emblems im- 
plies, methinks, the nearest and dearest, 
<the strongest bond of union that earth 
contains. It implies relation both with 
■each other, the household of faith, and 
above all with our God through the offering 
of his Son. It surely indicates the best 
relation between the . whole family of 
heaven above and the redeemed of earth. 
The whole subject tends to bind us, one and 
all, to the one that died for all. He is the 
heir to heaven's throne, and we in being 
clrawn to him are thus drawn to all the 
members of the upper court, and as well to 
all his brethren here. To thus commem- 
orate his death, as we do, is to say that we 
love the one that died. To love him is to 
love his mission and his work, and, above 
all, the Father, who sent him; those, too, 
who came and ministered unto him, and to 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 19 

love all especially who have the like pre- 
cious faith. This solemn service does, in 
the most earnest manner, show forth our 
faith in the glorious coming of our Lord 
from heaven. This is his promise to us, 
and the bread and wine are used to com- 
memorate one solemn event till another will 
come to pass. I. Cor. 11 : 26. It is an 
evidence of our faith in his lite, his death, 
his rssurrection, and his ascension to 
glory. It is also held as an evidence of 
our faith in his second coming, as well as 
to celebrate the most solemn events of the 
first. And of the many millions who have 
passed away Jesus is the only one who has 
said he would come back again, or has left 
us anything as a keepsake till the return. 
And with this hope his death is celebrated. 
We do thus partake of his blood and of his 
life, and that too with a hope that his glorious 
return, when eternal life will be ours, is 
not far ahead. It does most strongly in- 
dicate a lively faith in the grand reunion 
of men and angels forever in the paradise 
of God. 



20 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER III. 

CHURCH RELATION. 

This relation rests not alone upon our 
feelings toward one another, and neither 
upon our feelings toward our God, though 
much upon both together, but it rests 
more upon God'sjeelings toward us. If we 
do his will then he is pleased to accept us 
as his children. We then belong to his 
kingdom. But if we do not obey his will 
then the proper feeling does not exist, both 
from us to him and from him to us, and it 
is plain that we do not belong to his house- 
hold. See the first epistle of John. Our 
Savior urged that ws love him, and he 
gave us a standard by which we can know 
that we do love him. It is this: "If ye 
love me, keep my commandments. " John 
14: 15, 23. These require of us to love 
Jesus and to love one another. To love 
God and to love our neighbor are the two 
great commandments, and it may truly be 
said that upon love as a basis hangs all 
the fullness of heaven's offer. That we 
may all see how highly this bright jewel 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 21 

is prized in the upper world, we cite the 
25th chapter of Matthew, where our Mas- 
ter says that "Inasmuch as ye have done 
it unto one of the least of these my 
brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matt. 
25 : 40. When your feeling is such as to 
love God and to fully obey his word, then 
it is that you love all his people, and they 
all love you, and you are not far from a 
place in the same family where, at the same 
table, all could happily commune together. 
But before we judge ourselves by our 
own standard to be worthy of a place in 
this family and at this table, let us try our- 
selves by the standard of truth, the gospel 
rule, and if our effort to serve God is there 
portrayed, and our admission into the family 
of God is there legalized, we need have no 
fear but that our relation to God and his 
people is a proper one. However, in case 
we should there learn that it is not thus 
authorized (and we can all soon tell whether 
it is or not), let me, as a friend, urge that 
you deceive yourselves no longer, but secure 
at once the nearest relation, both to God 
and his people, that is possible, and such a 
one, too, as is approved fully by the word of 
God. It is the standard, and all other 
rules must be subordinate to it. If we 
come to it we are then safe — are in the 



22 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

family of God, and have all the rights to 
his table and of his household. But other- 
wise we are not safe, and we have no claim 
within the household unless we enter by 
the door. John 10: 9. Do not, kind 
reader, risk anything at this point in your 
soul's welfare, for oT all risks that of the 
soul is the most fatal. Matt. 16 : 26 ; 
Mark 8: 36,37. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 23 



CHAPTER IV. 



CHURCH CLAIMS. 



But few churches will or can allow the 
claims, in full, of all "surrounding churches, 
and the Dunkard people are no exception 
whatever to this very general rule. And., 
as the subject now under consideration ha& 
direct reference to our public intercourse- 
with other churches, I hope that it will not 
be thought improper for me to speak freely 
in the discussion of it, so that all may- 
know fully how it is regarded by us. It 
may be thought, too, that the above state- 
ment is a sweeping one, and that we as a 
people are actually as narrow-minded and 
selfish as has been charged upon us. It 
is claimed, too, that if we were not thus 
close-hearted, we would not so readily con- 
demn all* other people. In reply I would 
say that I have not condemned any, and 
do not wish to condemn any one, but I 
piave only spoken of the very general habit 
of judging, in matters of doctrine, all 
others outside of our own door. 

In the leading sentence to this chapter 



24 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

it is intimated that all tlie churches of to- 
day, without any exception that I know of, 
lay claim to the nearest relation to God. 
They claim not to be a portion, but to be 
all. However, there is, I believe, a feeling 
sometimes shown, which shows that some- 
others may be a kind of first cousin, but 
that is as far as it goes. They may indeed 
allow that others have a part that is good, 
but do not admit that any save their own 
have it all. This I apply, not to a part, 
but to all professing people, for I think all 
are more or less implicated in the claim 
laid. And although I do not approve of 
so broad a claim, yet I can not see how any 
could claim less and be a church at all. If 
they did not claim this much, it would vir- 
tually put the veto upon all they claim. 
When one claims to have religion at all, 
it will not do to claim any but the right 
kind, and invariably all men claim this, 
let their faith be what it may. To be a 
sect at all, we must claim all, and the best, 
and in all cases this has been done by all. 
All are in their estimation God's chosen 
few. 

This being assumed by all, I ask upon 
what ground this claim is made, and am 
readily told by every one that it is based 
upon the Word of God. We take up the 



CLOSE COMMUNION. ZO 

hallowed volume, and ere long feel shocked 
at our disappointment. We are not sur- 
prised in finding so much to favor any one 
of the many sects, but we are surprised to 
find so little to support any one of the 
many. The Bible is, we know, a broad 
foundation, but that each sect should lay 
claim to the w r hole of it, and then use so 
little of it, discarding all the rest, is truly 
surprising. There is, perhaps, no way in 
which professing people show greater weak- 
ness than in the way they dispose of that 
part of the Word of God which ia not held 
by them as doctrine. In some parts it, to 
them, is all wisdom, love and power, but in 
others it is neither wisdom, love, nor power. 
A little part means everything, while the 
greater portion of it means nothing. 

By this rule it is difficult to learn which 
of the many who claim it, are, in truth, 
the people described in the New Testament. 
If there were no other proofs of loyalty to 
Zion's King than that of each one's claim 
to it, the whole list might be discarded at 
once. But Jesus gave one infallible test of 
loyalty to him, and it is that of obedience. 
" If ye continue in my w r ord, then are ye 
my disciples indeed: And ye shall know 
the truth, and the truth shall make you 
free." John 8 : 31, 32, And again he 



26 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

says: "If ye love me, keep my command- 
ments." John 14: 15. Bat I now cite 
the real truth as he gives it, by which not 
only the Christian himself can know that 
he is a disciple, but all men can know that 
the claim is a proper one. It is this : "By 
this shall all men know that ye are my 
disciples, if ye have love one to another." 
John 13 : 35. 

Although there are so many professed 
Christians in the world, this very easy and 
natural rule will apply to only a few of 
them. I doubt much if it will apply to 
any church in existence, when taken as a 
whole, for all men can not see this proof in 
all the members of any church. Our own 
people will at once confess that there is not 
that tender love among us as a body that 
there should be, and I am sorry it is so, 
and all should weep over it. We hear, too, 
of the same sad condition in other churches, 
and from what we see and know, we think 
that with them it is as bad, or worse, than 
it is with us. They seem to go to greater 
extremes than our people as yet do. This 
being the sad state in churches where all 
believe the same doctrine and all worship 
in the same way, how can we expect more 
love and better union where all is different? 
where doctrine, government, and practice 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 27" 

are so different? Do we find more love- 
between the members of different churches 
than we do among those of the same- 
church ? I have not found it yet, and da 
not think that anybody else has, nor do I 
now think it ever will be found. 

Then, as we now confess that people of 
their own churches do not love each other- 
as the Master said his people should ; and,, 
further, as the people of one church do not 
and can not have the love for those of an- 
other church, which they do for their own,, 
and it is already too little, I ask in all can- 
dor, why should we try in open communion 
to put on the appearance of much love,, 
when we well know it does not exist ? It 
is simply a pious fraud, a religious decep- 
tion, if such a thing can be. To thus try 
to cover up the real condition of things- 
with a cloak of love and union, is to do- 
that which has often disgraced the church 
of God, in the eyes of all sensible men r 
both in the church and out of it. "Take- 
heed therefore that the light which is in 
thee be not darkness." Luke 11 : 35. See 
also Matt. 6 : 23, latter part. 

I have before stated that all professors 
claim to be the people of God and to take- 
the word of God, when at the same time 
none of them take it as they ought — taker 



28 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

all of it, and no more ; and I can not think 
that I have missed the mark very far. I 
know that some will dissent from our view 
of this because not a few will maintain 
that " there are some good people in all 
churches." This we often hear. And I 
grant that individuals may be found in 
many churches, who are an honorable ex- 
ception, not so much to what I have here 
said, as to the faith and practice of their 
own church. They want to be right and 
want to do right. These want to do the 
right thing, and want to do it in the right 
way, but are prevented from doing it be- 
cause their church or body will not favor 
it. This class, I think, should ever have 
the sympathy of all good people, for they 
need it. Some may ask why give sympathy 
when any and all can obey any command- 
ment if they wish? I say not. Take, if 
you will, the ceremony of baptism, and will 
any say the sinner can baptize himself? 
I think not. And again, take the thirteenth 
'Chapter of John, where the subject of feet- 
washing is treated, — the example and the 
command are both given, — and I ask, Can 
any humble Christian do that duty by him- 
self? I say not, for the command is to 
"wash one another's feet." Some will now 
.*ay, "Let these then go and join the church 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 29 s 

that favors anl practices these things." 
But I reply, it is not the place of people to* 
hunt up the church, but it is the church's 
place to hunt up the people. And more : 
I ask what are those to do who read those 
and other duties in the Word but do not 
know that there is a people on earth that 
obeys them? The light must come out 
from " under the bushel" before all can see 
it and enjoy it. 

But while I have made the above excep- 
tion for the sake of those who would gladly 
do anything that Jesus bade, and whose 
circumstances do not fully favor them, I 
will still claim that all churches claim too- 
much and do too little. And I would fur- 
ther say those for whom I made the above 
exception, as to motive and intention, very 
seldom if ever contend for "Open Com- 
munion/ ' for they at once see the impro- 
priety of such a course. Those who are 
reasonable in their religion are generally 
so in everything that pertains to it. The 
reason we can not grant all that religious 
bodies claim for themselves is because the 
book of God forbids some things that these 
admit, while it in other things requires 
much more than they claim. The breach 
is too wide for a compromise without a 
great surrender upon one side. The chasm 



.'30 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

as too wide 'to be spanned by human skill, 
.and for that reason we are not the people 
to attempt to do it by an open communion. 
If others will presume to span it they may, 
ibut they do so upon what they think and 
siot upon what they know. If they knew 
it, they could prove it ; but as proof is not 
^brought, we conclude that it does not exist. 
¥e know that the Bibl£ will not prove it, 
for it will recognize only one people to be 
<rod's people. These all love Jesus and do 
his commandments, hence they and they 
^only have his love. " If ye keep my com- 
mandments ye shall abide in my love ; even 
:as I have kept my Father's commandments 
-and abide in his love." John 15 : 10. To 
keep these commandments is to be Christ's 
people and one church, for when his word 
is kept by all then we have but one church. 
We need no more and ask for no more. 
His word will allow of no more, for to have 
snany people to obey one law is to make 
fthem to be one people. 

Another reason why we can not as a 
apeople admit all that others claim, is this : 
We, like them, claim that the Bible war- 
rants both our faith and our practice, as a 
church. ( And I might well say, too, that 
at warrants more than we have, for it urges 
.that we do the -work of the Master with a 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 31 

zeal, and such too as I think* is not yet to 
be seen. However, I hope that a better, 
brighter day is near at hand, and that we 
all may yet show forth both the word and 
the spirit of the Master.) As was said be- 
fore of others, we, too, must claim all tho 
Gospel, to have a church at all. For us to 
claim less than this is to admit one of two 
things. First, it is to admit that God has 
more than one right way to do the right 
thing, which is to say that the laws of 
grace are not as reasonable as are the laws 
of nature ; or, second, it is to admit that 
other churches are right and ours is wrong. 
This last, as you know, kind reader, is not 
in human nature to do. And to admit that 
this human nature, in 'our case, has been 
crucified and in its place a holy nature to 
have been imparted, does not warrant us 
in admitting that others have a like change 
unless we are fully satisfied that this change 
has been brought about in "like manner." 
This now brings us to the subject of con- 
version, or change of relation, and here, I 
may say, is where the differences will come 
in. I was aware of these differences before 
I began to write, and am yet, but I hope to 
present the views of our people without 
being offensive, and hope that all will be 
not easy to take offence. Should any ex- 



32 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

pression of mine in any way appear to 
show that kind of spirit, I hope it will not 
be taken as such, for none is so intended. 
To merely give the views of oar people is 
my object. Change of heart and change 
of relation, although held by all to be so 
important in the work of salvation, are by 
the many churches thought to be obtained 
in a very different way. What one accepts 
as real conversion another takes only as a 
delusion. That which is bona fide with 
one is counterfeit with another, and what 
is held as essential to salvation by some is 
only laughed at by others, so that there is 
only one thing agreed to by all, and that 
is that there is such a thing as conversion, 
but none are agreed as to what it is or how 
to get it. But the most strange thing to 
us is that many can decide that professors 
are worthy to partake at the Lord's table, 
as it is called, and yet can not admit that 
they are converted, can allow to all pro- 
fessors a place at the Lord's table, but will 
not admit that they belong to his household. 
How any can thus share the rights of this 
household with those held as strangers to 
it, is a problem I can not solve. To thus 
admit all without distinction is to legalize 
the standing of every one. To thus fellow- 
ship the many is to fellowship the faith of 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 33 

every one and allow that it is a part of or 
as good as our own. 

As to the subject of laith I remark that 
we must all accept of the same manner as 
to change of condition and relation, or we 
can not have the same faith as to the same 
thing. To one church it was said there is 
11 One Lord, one faith, one baptism," and 
we hold that this implied that there should 
be "one faith" as to one and the same 
thing, that is, that they all should believe 
the one thing and in the same way, and so 
I remark that this should be the condition 
of all who claim to occupy the same rela- 
tion. And if such is not their condition,, 
their communion is only in name, and not 
much in that. 

As to the manner in which sinners are 
to be taken into relation with God's people,. 
I remark that the Apostolic Church as- 
suredly had it, and that too with God's ap- 
proval. The same method must have his 
approval yet, and while there is but one 
way for it, that one way is right. We all 
must admit that there is but one way yet, 
or admit that the laws of his kingdom 
change. "For ever, Lord, thy word is 
settled in heaven." Ps. 119: 89. "For 
I am the Lord, I change not." Mai. 3 : 6. 
If we say that God's government has more- 



34 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

than one way in which, to naturalize those 
who come into it, then we must admit that- 
his government is different in that respect 
from all other governments. For they, with- 
out any exception that I know of, have each 
font one way in which foreigners to its rule 
•can become naturalized. I do think that 
-ecclesiastical bodies have not always shown 
the wisdom and discretion, while acting 
upon this subject, which has been the com- 
mon practice of all legislative assemblies. 
Law makers, without being bound to follow 
any one rule, and often too without any 
regard to the word of revelation, have for 
<«ach nation but one way by which to nat- 
uralize, while the clergy, with ^n infallible 
:guide to go by and each man professing to 
^stand right up to it, has for one church 
sometimes as many as half a dozen ways, 
and for all churches almost as many ways 
as there are churches. This point should 
oot at any time be lost sight of, especially 
when we talk of open communion, or of 
organizing new churches. In my mind 
Christian communion implies a full union, 
both in faith and in practice, but to claim 
a communion when neither faith nor prac- 
tice agree, is to have only the name and 
oot much of it. "When our faith and our 
practice are the same with all, then we are 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 35 

not of different churches, but all of one 
church. We are all then " made perfect in 
one," and are as our Master prayed that 
we should be. Our conclusion would be to 
allow no more in theory than we do in 
practice, for this is the only proof any the- 
ory can have. 



i 



36 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER V. 



BUT ONE STANDARD. 



To admit all that is held by the many 
churches would be to say that God has near 
a thousand different ways in which his will 
may be acceptably done, and it would say, 
too, that God has no preference as to how 
his will is done. This is the theory when 
it is sifted, yet no one will admit it when 
charged with it. If this theory be denied, 
then each church must claim that they, 
and they only, are the "true church/' and 
that all others are not. This ver'y thing 
is what the "Dunkard Brethren" are 
charged with, because they allow only close 
communion ; but they really have no more 
of this feeling than the many who surround 
them. The popular religious world deny 
that they think themselves to be, in any 
case, the only true church, and yet they 
will say that God allows of only one right 
way to do the right thing. However, they 
commit themseves in open communion, and 
excuse themselves only in this way : They 
say, " It makes no difference, so the in ten- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 37 

tipn is a good one." We, as a people, do 
not favor such a plea as this last, and for 
that, reason do not make it. This theory- 
would say that God is not at all scrupulous 
as to what is done, or how it is done, so 
that the intention was a good one. It ad- 
mits that a man entirely ignorant of God's 
will may still do it, because he wants to do 
right. It admits, too, that a man who 
knows the Lord's will, may refuse to obey 
it, because his intention is not a bad one. 
It admits that all, whether they know the 
will of God or not, are still accepted w T ith 
him, simply because they want to do right. 
It makes us not accountable for what we 
say and do so much as for what we intend. 
If this theory be correct I can not see what 
revelation is for, for man might have 
had all his good intentions without it. 
Heathenism is then equal to Christianity; 
idolatry a full equal to holiness. 

But, kind reader, a good intention is not 
enough in any service we offer to God, for, 
although it is most important, it is not all. 
We must know that our intentions are 
really good ones, and we have to go to the 
word of God to learn it When we learn 
what to do, we are very apt to learn how 
to do it. Take, tor example, the subject of 
prayer, of alms-giving, fasting, how to 



38 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

treat offenses, etc. If you would test your 
intention, try it by the word of God. 
11 Prove all things; hold fast that which is 
good." I. Thess. 5: 21. Do the thing 
that God wants done, and do it, too, as he 
would have it done, and you then not only 
have a good intention, but you have its fruit 
as well. When you make these two points 
you may well think that your intentions 
are good ones, and should by all means be 
maintained. This is the only true test, and 
the only one that is safe. But in case it 
does not come up to this holy standard, you 
may rest assured that a better intention by 
you is much needed. And now your desire 
and intention as to free communion, are, in 
your estimation, no doubt, good ones, but 
I ask of you to carefully consider the whole 
subject of communion, its design, the re- 
strictions placed on it, its perpetuity, the 
danger of its abuse, the awful penalty for 
unworthiness, with all that is connected 
with this holy keepsake of the church, and 
I think it will not be a question so much as 
to whether you are liberal, or not, as it will 
be to know whether you are worthv. See 
I. Cor. 11 : 25, 30. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 39 



CHAPTER VI. 

WHICH TO TAKE. 

As we can not admit that all the different, 
forms of religion are approved of God, ifc 
then becomes a question with us as to how 
many, if any more than our own, we should* 
invite to commune. If we can not invite 
all, who and how many churches shall we 
invite? Here, I fear, is the most critical 
point any liberal people can occupy. They- 
may fear they will not go far enough, but 
they are most afraid they will go too far.. 
While the whole object is to do good, the- 
great fear is that they will do harm. There 
is no fear of doing too little, but the great 
dread is that they may do too much, and 
it is here that another danger is met. 

We are all aware that while there are a 
few who think themselves unworthy of any 
blessing, there are many who judge them- 
selves worthy of all. These can be found- 
everywhere, and these are they who feel to 
take part in every service in the house of 
God, and some, too, that are outside of it. 
In open communion these are always among 



40 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

the foremost, and, if no guard is set, will 
•always constitute a majority. Our people 
have a guard of close communion, and often 
-draw it in so closely as to have it fall with- 
in their own door. We feel, that there 
must be a guard somewhere, and so we put 
it where we have a right to use it, and feel, 
too, that the less we have of this very dan- 
gerous element, the better for all. As a 
proof for this course, we cite Paul's letter 
to the church at Corinth, in which he says : 
"Do ye not judge them that are within?" 
I. Cor. 5 : 12. Kind reader, please read 
the whole of this chapter of the apostle's 
letter and learn how that he would have 
the church to purge out the old leaven in 
order that it might be a new lump, and be 
entirely " unleavened," for in this condition, 
and in it only, can we fully estimate the 
great Passover that was sacrificed for us. 

This principle of open communion is a 
very broad one, and seems to grow wider 
each year, as we recede from the founding 
of the first church. If we have it at all, 
we must invite churches of every grade, 
for if we do not, then it is not open but 
restricted communion, and if we invite all 
without reserve, then all others must do 
the same. But here each begins to draw 
back because there is a point not very far 



CLOSE COMM UNION. 41 

from every church at which the feeling for 
open feasting suddenly stops. This feeling, 
in no one I have met yet, takes in all the 
religious world. But were we to call an 
open feast in the broad sense, and invite all 
who claim the Christian name, many who 
now advocate the most liberal sentiments, 
would not come unless they could have 
their part of the company and commune 
directly with them. In that case we would 
have a free communion on a wholesale plan, 
but it would be made up of a number of 
smaller ones, all on the plan of close com- 
munion. For if we allow the privilege of 
inviting all, we must allow those who are 
invited to pick their part of the company 
that is picked. We notice that this is the 
spirit more often seen with those who claim 
to be liberal than with any others, and 
therefore conclude that there are none who 
are open communionists in the full sense of 
that term. 

I invite the reader to continue with me 
in the consideration of this subject, and I 
give you the invitation with a conviction 
that ere I close you will readily admit that 
the Dunkard people could not do otherwise 
than to have and practice strictly a close 
communion. 



42 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER VII. 

WHO IS ORTHODOX? 

If we, as a people, wish to have open 
communion in order to prevent being 
thought illiberal, how far, and by what rule, 
shall we go, that we may not be thought 
too liberal ? The reader must be aware of 
the fact that in changes made, in more 
ways than one, we often change too far — 
pass from one extreme to another. The 
trite old saying that "when we are good, 
we are too good/' will, perhaps, give my 
meaning best, and I use it right here, for 
if there is any point at which the people of 
God could go too far with their good inten- 
tions, it is at this place. And is there not 
danger of this ? We think so. There may 
be some who would fault us for not inviting 
a few of other churches, but these same 
would fault us more for inviting the whole 
of any church, or for inviting all of the 
many churches. 

In the preceding chapter I tried to show 
that no one asked of us to admit to com- 
munion all churches without distinction ; 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 4$ 

and I may here say that there are none, 
not even the most liberal, who will do this. 
This being the way in which the matter is 
held, it then follows that a separation must 
be made — a preference shown. Some arc 
to be taken, but others are to be left. Now, 
dear reader, I will ask you or any other 
kind soul to tell us by what rule this selec- 
tion can be made. Who is worthy, and 
who is not ? How many churches shall we 
invite, if we go by churches, and which ? J 
If not by whole churches, then how shall 
we make our selection in the few to select- 
from? Please, kind friend, give us some- 
thing definite by which sufficient liberality 
may be shown to satisfy the most liberal,, 
and at the same time not do more than they 
want done. The only standard I have 
ever heard of being set up was "to invite 
all who are 'orthodox.' " This is one stand- 
ard, and the only one I have heard of in 
use, in open communion. This is, no doubt r 
good enough, if anybody could tell what it 
means, and how to apply it. Buck says it 
means " soundness of doctrine or opinion in 
matters of religion. " Webster says it 
means "sound in the Christian faith."' 
Walker^ says, "sound in opinion and doc- 
trine." These definitions are, no doubt r 
correct, but they, in this case, are as diffi- 



44 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

•cult to apply as the term itself. We do not 
•differ as to the meaning of the word, if it 
really has any, but we all differ as to how 
it is applied. Who is to say whose faith is 
sound and whose is not? By what rule 
-can any man say whether his own faith or 
that of anybody else, is sound or not? Is 
there any man who thinks his faith is un- 
sound? If there is, he is a stranger to 
me, This brings us back again to the 
starting point, and I again say, all men, in 
their opinion, are sound, both in their faith 
and in their practice. If this is not true, 
then quite all are sadly mistaken. The 
meaning of this term, when applied to one 
or refused to another, depends altogether 
on those who apply it, but if applied to 
ourselves or "our church," we are always 
•"orthodox." 

Some will tell us that the Bible is the 
standard of truth, and the soundness of our 
faith and practice are to be determined by 
it, and by it alone. To this we agree, and 
I would say that it will quickly show us 
whether our faith is sound or not, or 
whether we have any faith at all. When 
we go to this standard to prove our faith, 
£ind its kind, we are all apt to get more 
than we want. We are most apt to learn 
that we all are "of little faith," and if we 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 45 

seek a test as to its kind, we very often 
learn that ours is a "dead faith." There is 
a noble test of faith presented in scripture, 
and I think it quite sufficient to show 
whether any by this rule of orthodoxy are 
worthy to commune or not. "What doth 
it profit, my brethren, though a man say 
he hath faith, and have not works? 
Can faith save him?" James 2: 14-26. 
Here works are introduced to prove the 
genuineness of faith — its soundness, ortho- 
doxy, and, of course, our worthiness to 
partake of the Lord's body. And is it not 
the only positive proof that any can give 
to show "whether they are in the faith?" 
By this rule not only the possessor can 
know his standing, but others, be they 
saint or sinner, can all see this the only 
evidence of his faith that he can in any 
way give. To get at this point fairly, we 
must know that good works indicate good 
faith. Bad works, or no works at all, indi- 
cate a bad faith, or no faith at all. These 
proofs always tell their own story, no mat- 
ter what claim is m&de, and the blessing is 
that but few are so blind as not to see what 
kind of faith is indicated. If we take any 
other rule than the Gospel, no man can tell 
whether his faith, or his works, are good or 
bad. . He can not know if he has faith at 



46 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

all, and, of course, can not know whether 
he is orthodox or not. If we then take it 
that good works show good faith, and good 
faith shows that we are orthodox, and can 
for that reason be admitted to the Lord's 
table, what, I ask, are we to do with that 
•class who have no good works, and, there- 
fore have no good faith ? Shall we admit 
them, or shall we refuse them ? To admit 
them is to admit those who are not sound 
in the faith, and to refuse them is to have 
•a close communion. If we all allow the 
Gospel to be the rule as to soundness of 
faith, we will then have as close a com- 
munion as any of our people can ask for. 
JBy this rule whole churches will be swept 
:away, and I fear, too, that it will take not 
;a few of our own. I may remark, too, 
that this rule will be the test in the day of 
judgment. "The word that I have spoken, 
the same shall judge him in the last day." 
John 12 : 48. This test will not be applied 
to churches as bodies, but to all men in the 
lingular. 

I now remember another rule that was 
:given us by which it was said the proper 
selection could be made, and thus have an 
open feast. It was thh: "To admit all 
who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God." This has been urged upon us as a 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 47 

people, and although its friends admitted 
that there were great differences between 
churches as to other points of doctrine, 
and also in practice, yet it was claimed that 
we all believed the one fact that Jesus is 
the Son of God. It was held, too, that his 
blood was shed for all, and therefore we all 
should partake of these sacred emblems 
together. I admit that there is, at first 
thought, a feeling very impressive in this 
suggestion, and can most heartily wish and 
Dray that the state of the Christian world, 
"iere anticipated, might be in truth realized; 
but as it is we feel that this long wished 
for time has not yet come. After some 
reflection upon this plea, I discard it, too, 
as I do other reasons for open communion, 
because I consider them all unsound, and 
for that reason unsafe. I think it hardly 
necessary to treat this reason at length, 
but I will notice some of its bearings. 

It is not true that all professed Christians 
oelieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 
for some reject the claim to his divinity al- 
together, although they admit that such a 
man did once live, and admit, too, that he 
was a good man. This view was held by 
the SocinianSy a sect which flourished, says 
Buck, in Poland about the year 1551, and 
is now held by some, among whom I may 



48 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

name that branch of the Quakers known as 
Hicksites. The view is held by many indi- 
viduals, while the articles of faith accepted 
by the church of which they are members 
altogether forbid it, thus showing that the 
creed of any church is not a sufficient guide 
in making a selection of its members. 
There are others who believe that the Son 
is "the very and eternal God." This view 
is held by the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
as can be seen in the second article of their 
faith, and may be held by others. 

There are still others who believe that 
Jesus is the Son of God, who came to do 
his Father's will, and "must reign, till he 
hath put all enemies under his feet." "And 
when all things shall be subdued unto him, 
then shall the Son also himself be subject 
unto him that put all things under him, 
that God may be all in all." I. Cor. 15 : 
25, 28. This last makes a third view of 
this one subject, and there may be, for all 
I know, many more. 

That professed Christians do not agree 
upon this, the great subject of faith, is 
plain. And so wide is the difference that I 
think I can safely say there is but one thing 
in regard to it upon which they do agree, 
and that is the simple fact that there was at 
one time a man in the world named Jesus 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 49 

Christ This one thing is accepted by all 
classes of professors, and may be said to be 
the only thing that is in common — admitted 
by all. But it is not enough ground for 
all to thus come together and commune 
upon, for the admission of the one fact 
that the man Jesus once lived would ex- 
clude no one, not even a Paine or Voltaire. 
This rule would admit the worst side by 
side with the best, for but few are so low 
as not to admit this truth. To admit all 
who assent to this truth to an unrestricted 
lovefeast would give to it more the charac- 
ter of a banquet than of a feast in memory 
of the lowly Nazarene. I think that no 
one, merely for the sake of an open feast, 
would ask that all be admitted with no 
more fitness than the assent to one fact. 
There are too manv hallowed associations 
around the Lord's last supper for us thus 
to lower it to the level of paganism and 
idolatry. It is far too sacred and too 
solemn, and around it too many beauties 
cluster, for us thus to make it a " table of 
devils." L Cor. 10: 21. 

But if we restrict the line and say as 
some have said to us, " We should admit 
all who acknowledge that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God," the condition is then but 
little better than before, for, although it 
4 



00 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

•cuts off all who would reject his divinity, 
yet it still admits of too many. This last 
will admit thousands whose religion is only 
in their tongue, and not in their life, who 
say they believe, but who are still as wicked 
as those who believe not. It would admit 
that class, too, who, though moral and 
respectable, yet have never made a public 
'Confession of their faith in the Son of God. 
Tor these last it should be said, however, 
that they are most reasonable in one thing, 
and that is, they do not ask to commune, 
because they say they are not worthy, and 
will often find fault with many who do par- 
take, because their life shows only unfitness. 
And sorry am I to say that the statement 
•is only too true. But this standard, if 
• applied, would not exclude any class, save 
*the one, and would admit all others, even 
■devils, for they all know and are willing to 
confess that " I know thee who thou art, 
the Holy One of God." Matt. 8: 29; 
Markl: 24; 3: 11; Luke 4 : 41. 

Before closing this chapter I wish to pre- 
sent one other thought in regard to the 
selection of guests at an open feast. There 
is a class in this world of religions, who, 
though so numerous, are yet most unfor- 
tunate, through lack of sympathy, both 
from those in the church and from those 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 51 

outside of it. They are known commonly 
as Backsliders, or those who, as some say, 
" have fallen from grace." However, they 
have lost their membership in their church 
for some cause or other, but still they may 
have. the same faith they once had, though 
not as active, and, now, I ask, what is to 
be done with them ? We want some rule 
that will apply here, and one more definite 
than merely what a man believes. 

We believe, as a church, that the Chris- 
tian man and woman are placed under re- 
strictions in faith, in love, and in all things. 
As to our thoughts they are to be pure. 
Prov. 4 : 23 ; Phil. 4:8. As to our affec- 
tions, they, too, must be pure. Prov. 22 : 
11. " Blessed are the pure in heart, for 
they shall see God." Matt. 5:8. " And 
they that are Christ's have crucified the 
flesh with the affections and lusts." Gal. 
5 : 24. Our language, "always with grace, 
seasoned with salt." Col. 4: 6. "Not 
corrupt." Eph. 4: 29. To be "bridled." 
Psa. 39: 1; James 1: 26, and 3: 2-10. 
Our work and our example to be holy as 
.well as honest, "Because it is written, Be 
ye holy, for I am holy." I. Peter 1 : 16. 
And " having our conversation honest 
among the Gentiles." II. Peter 2: 12. 
These and many other scriptures say to us 



52 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

that a "narrow way" and "strait gate" 
is laid out for the Christian to go through, 
and here he must walk, or else not be a 
Christian. In a word, if his objects, asso- 
ciations, and works are not good, then 
is he not a child of God. 

Now, how can it be that those who are 
thus restricted in everything that is unholy 
should be asked to commemorate the most 
solemn event a world has seen, and that, 
too, with those who are under no restric- 
tions whatever ? Eevelation will not allow 
it. See I. Cor. 10 : 26, where by this or- 
der the "Lord's table" would be classed as 
the "table of devils," and read again I. 
Cor. 5: 9-13, where we are "not to keep 
company with any man who is called a 
brother, if he be a fornicator, or covetous, 
or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, 
or an extortioner; with such a one no not 
to eat." It may be thought an honor to 
this class to least with Christians, and at 
the Lord's table, but it is no honor to the 
table, nor to the Christian. It may be 
thought a favor to some, but it is no favor 
to all. If there be glory to any, it can not 
be glory to God. "Whether therefore ye 
eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to 
the glory of God." I. Cor. 10: 31. I 
fondly hope it will not be so much a ques- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 53 

tion as to how many can partake together, 
as to know for ourselves that "I am in 
some measure worthy to receive so great a 
gift as that of the body and blood of my 
Lord." 



54 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

PURITY TO BE SOUGHT. 

In this matter as in all that pertains to 
the church, we regard the Gospel to be the 
divine standard. And the reason I attach 
so much importance to it in the treatment 
of this subject is, because Jesus, who is the 
great object of revelation, gave this rite to 
show forth his own death until he would 
come again. "For as often as ye eat 
this bread and drink this cup, ye do show 
forth the Lord's death till he come." I, 
Cor. 11 : 26. We want to keep in memory 
in a proper manner the death of our Lord, 
and we want to show, too, that we are look- 
ing for his return again, and that we are 
getting ready for it. The thrilling events 
connected with the death of Jesus Christ 
are sufficient, I think, to warm any heart 
with love, not only for the one who died, 
but also for those for whom he did die. 
I now speak of this institution as I feel it 
should be regarded, both by those who keep 
it and those who do not, but I am sorry 
that it is not always so regarded by those 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 55 

who do frequently engage in the celebration' 
ol it. The reason I speak thus is, because 
I do not see in the lives of all such what 
should be seen. There is not near enough 
of that life that "is hid with Christ in God." 
There is not enough of that mind seen 
which wishes only to know " Christ and 
him crucified." There is not what there- 
should be, I think, of that purity of senti- 
ment, holiness of life, with zeal, patience 
and charity that Christians should all have 
to enable them to rightly feel the w r orth of 
that offering made for a world of sinners.. 
It is not enough that we should sometimes- 
have good thoughts, but to be Christians 
we must have no bad ones. We should 
not feel satisfied w T ith good intentions only 
sometimes, but we must have these all the 
time. It will not do to be a Christian once 
in a while, or for a little season, but we^ 
must be a Christian all the time — every- 
day, all the the year round, and "Be 
thou faithful until death, and I will give- 
thee a crown of life." Rev. 2: 10. Con- 
versions that endure only for a few days, or 
for a season, are but partial ones,, and the 
prayer of David could with much propriety- 
be used daily by all such : " Create in me a 
clean heart, God." Psa. 51 : 10. 

It is easy to mark out in fancy what we 



56 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

think should be, but this is seldom realized. 
And so in this we say what should be seen 
around the Lord's table, and how his people 
should live, and act, to be in reality his 
people, but we well know that but few 
of us ever come up to our own standard of 
right. And there is no place we feel this 
more than when we partake " of that bread 
which *we break" to one another. The 
general cry is that church discipline is too 
loose, and that professors of all names are 
not such holy men and women as their 
parents were. This would say for us to 
draw the chord of union even tighter than 
before, that if possible the church with its 
people may be without spot and " a glorious 
church." 

It may not be known by many outside of 
our brotherhood that we, as a people, do 
not allow our own membership to partake 
at communion when their life has been not 
a Christian one. But such is the fact, and 
although it is no honor to the church to 
meet such cases, it is far better to restrict 
those at fault than to indulge them. We 
seek not to indulge the many, but do seek 
the purity of all, and so we treat the fault, 
when it is found. If satisfaction is not 
made, or peace restored, our communion is 
so close as to draw its line wholly within 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 57 

the church, and it is here " that we with- 
draw ourselves from every brother that 
walketh disorderly." II. Thess. 3:6. I 
make the statement not alone for others, 
but for our own people, that they may not 
at any time forget that there is an effort to 
be made, an object to be gained, a point to 
be held, in order to be, as the Master said, 
" the light of the world." Let none forget, 
too, that purity of life, and a strict ad- 
herence to the word of life, is expected by 
all, both those in the church and those out- 
side of it. 

In my remarks heretofore in favor ot 
close communion I have spoken only 01 
those of other churches, and those who in 
our own church walk disorderly, as to how 
we should treat them at our feasts. But I 
wish before I close this argument to draw 
the line still more closely. The line is now 
a short one, but it can still be made shorter, 
if we will only apply it. Let us all now 
draw it full within our own selves. If it 
be to license sin in our brother, who is at 
fault, to commune with him, it is sin in us 
to attempt to commune with Christ when lust, 
envy, hatred, or any evil passion is fostered 
in our own heart. Eemember that un- 
worthiness to go to the Lord's table is not 
always found with the man without bap- 



58 CLOSE COMMUNION. . 

tism, the imprisoned convict, or the reeling 
drunkard, but may be met with in those 
who are approved of men, but are not ap- 
proved of God. Be sure to heed this: 
"Let a man examine himself, and so let 
him eat," but do not forget that while our 
examination may be a partial one, our 
searching of self a very hasty one, God's 
view of our condition will be full and com- 
plete; and "the day shall declare it." Do 
not, dear brother and sister, refuse only to 
commune with other churches, or members 
under censure, but refuse, as well, to feast 
with anything in thyself that is wrong — 
anything that is not of faith, "for whatso- 
ever is not of faith is sin." Pluck first the 
mote from thine own eye. 

I now close my arguments in favor of 
close communion with a hope that the rea- 
der will admit that our views as to it are 
at least reasonable. And I still ask to be 
followed on in my reasons against what is 
called " Open Communion." 



PART II. 

REASONS AGAINST OPEN COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER IX. 

IT IS DECEPTIVE. 

To some it may seem that the reasons for 
a thing would be a positive reason against 
its opposite, and so it may be, but in treat- 
ing this subject I wish to be plain, and 
want all to know what I say, and how I 
say it. For that reason I give first the- 
reasons for our people's practice, and now 
proceed to give the reasons against a change 
of that practice. 

My first reason against an open com- 
munion is, that it is no proof whatever that 
a Christian feeling exists among those who 
practice it, and it is for that reason decep- 
tive. It puts on the appearance of union 
when that does not exist. Men seem in 
this to forget that " the Lord seeth not a& 
man seeth ; for man looketh on the outward 
appearance, but the Lord looketh on the- 



60 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 



heart." I. Sam. 16: 7. The want of 
brotherly love in members of the same 
church, and often, too, of the same family, 
has been a frequent remark for all classes, 
and not only of remark, but of grief to all 
who seek peace. And when peace and 
union was sought for both time and money 
have been spent to bring again the union 
wished for. We speak this of members of 
the same church, where all believe the 
same doctrine, and all worship in the same 
way, yet for all this there is not the good 
feeling there that should be with those of 
the same household, and more particularly 
u of the household of faith/' This being 
the sad condition where it should be far 
otherwise, in order to rightly commemorate 
the Lord's death, I ask, how can it be 
that a better feeling should be found 'with 
those who can agree upon only one thing, 
:^nd that no more than the fact that the man 
Christ Jesus once lived? How can it be 
that neighbors, who are of different sects, 
with a variety of views both as to doctrine 
and practice, should have more love for the 
members of other sects than for those of 
their Own ? If this be the feeling, why 
>have so many sects to interrupt this union 
that is so strong ? Why not have a less 
.number, or only one, as our Master prayed, 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 61 

if our love be so great? My brother, if 
there is really so much love as to have but 
one table, why not less persecution ? Why 
not show forth this heart's overflowing in 
a more practical way than merely the taking 
together of a bit of bread and a sip of 
wine ? For our part we are afraid of that 
feeling which seeks to show love and union- 
by doing so little. The man of God must 
have that love which " suffereth long, and 
is kind," and "thinketh no evil." I. John 
3 : 18. We notice, too, that those who are 
the most in* favor of open communion are 
also the most ready to show the spirit of 
persecution. Those who cry loudest for 
liberty of conscience always allow it least. 
The church that clings most closely to the- 
word of Jesus always suffers most. And 
that church which will persecute others 
tor their understanding of the word of God,, 
is always on the wrong side. The Christian* 
never persecutes another. Jesus did not,, 
and Christians must be like him. " Let 
this mind be in you which was also in 
Christ Jesus." Phil. 2: 5. 

Open communion is always made upon 
the claim that it is a common cause and 
one common faith. I ask, what are the- 
proofs of it? We can not know the tree 
but by its fruits, which, as we see here, do< 



*G2 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

not show love in any case. And many 
•dozen churches opposing each other, with 
no one thing in common, is a very poor in- 
dication that they have a common faith. 
I would ask what it is which is held in 
common by all? If we were to judge of 
the feeling actually existing between the 
many different churches by what we see of 
their treatment of each other we would 
think love to be the least of all feelings, if 
felt at all. I very much doubt if more 
love is to be seen with their broad claims 
to religion than might be seen without any 
-claim to religion at all. We think open 
communion a very poor way to show a feel- 
ing which does not exist, and for that rea- 
son oppose it. If love did exist, other 
proofs could be shown in ways much more 
lasting and practical than this one, and in 
them alone. Love ever seeks many ways 
for exercise. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 63 



CHAPTER X. 

DANGEROUS TO PIETY. 

Open communion does not favor a high 
degree of piety. 

I am fully aware that many who favor 
an open feast lay a broad claim to love and 
piety, and who seem, too, to regarl their 
liberality in sentiment as a fair index to 
that happy condition. The condition is 
one to be desired, and the Scriptures greatly 
encourage the efforts to attain it, but while 
this is offered, the point set for Christians 
to strive for, and within reach, too, is a 
high one. It is no less than victory over 
self, the world, Satan, and the grave. To 
gain these through our Lord's mercy to us 
should be the constant effort of us all, but 
to be sure of these, none should be satisfied 
with merely a name in the church. There 
are too many now who "hast a name that 
thou livest, and art dead." Eev. 3 : 1. 
This sad condition is far too common now, 
with all the effort made to infuse new life, 
but to make the way wider, and to take oft 
the restrictions on professing people which 



64 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

this would certainly do, could not at all be 
favorable to more holiness. It is now too 
little, and its holders are far too few for us 
to think of taking away any of the guards 
already placed around and in the church. 
To be thought worthy to approach the 
Lord's table is a point worth gaining, but 
it is worth more to hold it. To do this re- 
quires a close watch, not over others, but 
over ourselves, and not for the time, but 
for life. To gain this point and then to 
hold it does not in any case rest solely on 
our feelings, for good feelings are not so 
much the cause of action as the result of 
it. They are more apt to follow than to go 
before. Jesus said, "If ye know these 
things, happy are ye if ye do them." John 
13 : 17. If our desire is to -show these 
toward our fellows by feasting with them 
at the Lord's table, it does not show this 
toward them alone, but toward our Lord as 
well. And, to do this acceptably, we must 
show this not in feeling, but in a more 
practical way, one that can be seen and 
felt by others as well as ourselves. Matt. 
5: 47. James 2: 15, 16. 

If our happiness comes only from a sense 
of feeling that we had communed with 
others, and is all that we feel, it is small 
indeed. For the time spent of one's life, 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 65 

while engaged directly in the feast, is very 
short when compared with one's whole life- 
time, and for us and them to have no more 
love for each other than that felt at the 
table, would make it small indeed, and, of 
course, our happiness not very great. I 
have tried to show that the love between 
churches was not so very great, and now 
to have no more of it, and to enjoy it no 
longer than a few moments in a year or 
lifetime, is to put a very high estimate 
upon our time, but a very low one upon 
this holy keepsake of the church, and as 
weir upon the love between churches. It 
is to show that our love is small — can be 
quickly shown and is soon forgotten. 

Now, who will seek for a high degree ot 
piety when he does not need it to bring to 
himself any more than he has. Open com- 
munion s*ives all he can ask for in doctrine 
and in almost anything he wants in the 
church, or out of it, and so he wants no 
more, and, of course, seeks no more. He 
is very thankful that he lives in an age 
when it is so easy to be a Christian. And 
why should any seek more when the church 
allows all she can, and he has the world 
beside? Satan himself could be a Chris- 
tian under such favorable circumstances, 
where nothing is restricted but all is in- 



66 'CLOSE COMMUNION. 

dulged. This shows for itself that the 
church is very little valued, if at all, by 
those who are in it, and not respected at 
all by many who are out. With so little 
love, so little time spent in showing it, and 
so little benefit to each other in any way, 
why should it be ? Why should anything 
liave respect when it does not respect itself? 
It is always the exercise of any feeling 
which increases it, and this one having so 
little exercise, is far more apt to die than 
to live. The impression with many now is 
that love between churches has been a long 
while dead, and so long, I fear, that to feast 
together once in a year, or in a lifetime, 
•could bring life again no more. I 
do believe that the hopeless inscription, 
"Death is an eternal sleep," might now be 
written upon the tablet of church union. 
I think it dead, and that, too, to rise again 
no more. 

The Gospel requires of its people a 
growth in grace and in knowledge ( II, Pe- 
ter 3: 18), and if this be urged by those 
who hold open communion, it is to require 
of our own more than we do of others, for 
these must be admitted without it, as we 
*can have no rule over them. If it be not 
urged, then is there no growth or if any, 
It is small. I say this as much for our own 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 67 

people as for any others, for the claim to 
take the whole Gospel is no evidence that 
all is taken, or that all is applied. But 
allowing that this lack of growth is com- 
mon to all churches, free communion could 
in no way better the condition, for men are 
too easily satisfied with being like those 
around them. Hence there is no effort 
made to reach a higher point. Our Master 
is the standard, and to be like him in char- 
acter should be the aim of us all, — "that 
ye should follow his steps. " I. Peter 2 : 21. 
To strive for no higher than our surround- 
ings is to be but little better than the 
heathen, for his aim is no more than to be 
like his fellows. The Christian's example 
is from heaven, and we learn to imitate it 
here, that we may through him be enabled 
to gain its pure and holy society, where 
there is " nothing that defileth." Eev. 21 : 
27. 

It is sometimes said to us that if all were 
Christians and all would do right, it would 
be so nice for all to feast together. So say 
w r e. But even then it would be close com- 
munion, for there would be but the one 
church, all of the same faith, all practice 
the same thing and in the same way. The 
Bible would in every case be the standard, 
and not a promise, or a blessing, but what 



68 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

would be enjoyed by every one. It would 
then, as now, be confined to those, and to 
them only, who obeyed its commandments. 
Did those who advocate open feasting show 
most piety, most humility, and most charity, 
it would then be an argument we could not 
and would not wish to meet, but as it is we 
oppose a practice w T hich can not but lead 
more to the world than toward heaven, and 
for that reason is not to the glory of God. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 6 J 



CHAPTER XL 

LAW IS SET ASIDE. 

With an open feast it is impossible to 
disoum an unruly member. 

It need hardly to be argued that men 
under law often need reproof for their con- 
duct. Disloyalty -is too common and weak- 
ness too prevalent for rebuke and punish- 
ment to be unknown, or for any to doubt 
the need of it. This is the common hind- 
rance to civilization, and it is all because 
man is not as civil as his law would make 
him. He, although claiming the most in- 
telligence of any or all other beings, is yet 
the most intractable of any. To maintain 
the purity and objects of any organization 
framed by man or for man, it is absolutely 
necessary that penalties be attached to all 
laws. This is because he is not always, 
obedient. Offenses come, and that so gen- 
eral and so frequent as to require a very 
great part of the law for their correction. 
This correction must be had or society is 
lost. The rule of law is to grade the pun- 
ishment with the crime. For a small 



70 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

offense the punishment is small, where laws 
are civil, but for a greater one, or for a 
repetition of the first, the punishment is 
greater, and still laid with a hope to reform 
the erring one, and at the same time to 
guard carefully the interests of the body- 
that imposes it. And let the feelings of 
mercy toward the one at fault be what they 
may, and the crime be great or small, 
there is and must be a point at which for- 
bearance ceases, unless it is decided to in- 
dulge the fault. The only difference in 
different bodies is, that some come to this 
point much sooner than others do. Some 
decide right at once to indulge no more, 
while others will claim that it is no crime 
at all to indulge it from first to last. Of 
the latter it may be asked whether it is 
government at all, but where moderation is 
used penalties are at first inflicted with a 
view to reformation. If this is not reached 
in a reasonable time that member is cut off. 
This view of punishment is held by our 
people and offenses are treated about as 
follows : For offenses termed private or in- 
dividual, the church requires of each and 
all its members to use the 18th chapter of 
Matthew, 15th to 17th verses, and until it 
is done, the trouble can not be heard by 
the church. But for sins against the body 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 72 

a different course is taken. The erring one 
is visited to learn first if the report be true, 
and in case it is, or there is room for suspi- 
cion, it is brought to the church and there 
heard. If the accused is at fault, restitu- 
tion is called for, if any has been wronged ; 
but if it be against the body in general, 
confession is asked, with a promise to sin 
no more. Upon this pardon is granted and 
the mxtter is dropped. But if it be re- 
peated and the church thinks that reforma- 
tion is hopeless, they are then cut off. I 
would say, to 3, that very often reports are 
spread for which the church thinks there is 
just ground, and the member charged is 
then restricted from coming to the com- 
munion, until the truth is learned, and 
satisfaction is made. And again, when we 
learn that there is a private difficulty be- 
tween members and it unsettled, we say to 
both of them, or all, not to come until 
peace is made. We think it far better to 
have ten to commune where there is love 
and union than to h&vefive hundred where 
there is not. We do not in any case seek 
to indulge sin, and to. maintain the purity 
of the church these guards are set. And, 
with all this, there is yet too much of a 
lustful world indulged. To indulge any 
form of sin, whether public or private, can 



72 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

not be for the glory of God. It nevre has 
been, is not now, and, I think, never will 
be, for his glory, or for the welfare of any, 
to indulge a wrong in the church. It is 
the life of the body that is most important, 
and to secure it the diseased part must be 
cut off, when there is no hope of reform. 
Jesus says: " Every branch in me that 
beareth not fruit he taketh away." John 
15 : 2. This is one of the main objections 
to an open communion, and will remain so 
as long as there is a rule of right, and so 
long as men do not obey that rule. 

One fact well known is, that there are a 
vast number of so-called churches in the 
world. Another is, that the members of 
these do not all live up to the standard of 
their church, and hence fall under censure. 
A third fact is, that no two, or but a few 
of these churches have the same standard 
of purity, or treat crime in the same way. 
The fourth and the worst thing I know 
about it is, that there is not a crime on the 
list that a man can do, and for which he 
may lose his membership in one church, 
that will in any case prevent him from 
going right into some other church, if he 
only asks for it. There is no deed so dark, 
none so low, and no crime so high, as to 
prevent him from being easily admitted 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 73 

into some orthodox church. (We, of 
course, let each define his own faith.) This 
may be thought a hard saying, and quite a 
low grade of piety, and I grant it is both; 
but the saying is a true one, and cases can 
be found within easy reach. 

In my opinion such a course puts the 
veto upon every restriction in the Gospel, 
and open communion gives its sanction to 
that veto. This being the way in which 
crime is treated, or rather indulged, I ask 
of what use it can be to cut off an unruly 
member for any crime whatsoever, let it be 
theft, murder, drunkenness, adultery, her- 
esy, or anything else, and then when he 
has obtained a membership in another 
church, invite that church, and him, too, 
to come back and commune with us at 
what we call the Lords table. It is to say 
that we do not count him good enough to 
eat at our table, but he and all others like 
him may eat at the Lord's table. To me 
this looks like we thought ours better and 
more holy than the Lord's is. And is it 
not so ? I think this method of indiscrim- 
inate feasting, although we say it is the 
Lord's table, is far more unholy than a 
mere private feast at our homes. They are 
none too pure, or holy, but they are better 



74 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

guarded than a banquet with all classes 
under the cloak of religion. 

The character of anything is just what 
we make it. If the character of a house is 
good, it is because its people make it so. 
If its name is bad, it is all because it is 
made so, and its people are to blame for it. 
Just so with a feast. If it is holy, those 
who feast are holy. If it is a " feast of 
devils," it is only because devils feast at it. 
Its right name must always follow the 
character of those who partake at its board. 

If a disowned member can thus be ad- 
mitted back again, what was he disowned 
for? What has he lost by bad conduct? 
I answer, nothing. It is rather to put a 
premium on those who run away from jus- 
tice, and to give a precedent by which all 
can see that loyalty is on a par with re- 
bellion. By this rule the " spots" of Jude 
12 are apt to spread so as to be seen no 
more — all to be of one color. To do thus 
is, in my opinion, the most inconsistent 
practice that a professing people can be 
guilty of. In theory they claim to honor 
only the faithful, but in their practice none 
are honored but the faithless. I would 
here suggest to all Christians that when 
they make up a meal and call it "the 
Lord's supper," that they invite none to it 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 75 

but those, and they alone, whom the Lord 
lias invited. Upon this subject as to who 
is fit and who is not, see I. Cor. 5 : 7-13, 
where the Christian is forbidden to keep 
company and to eat with the classes con- 
demned. This scripture is thought by 
many to apply to the eating of a common 
meal, and by others to apply only to the 
partaking of the holy emblems, but all 
agree that the Christian is here forbidden 
to partake of the communion with the 
classes named. To obey this word is to 
have close communion, and that, too, of the* 
closest kind, but to disregard it in any w T ay 
is to have a practice inconsistent with the 
Scriptures and all good government. This 
case is close communion in the same church. 
Before I close this subject there is one- 
point in particular to which I invite the 
attention of all, and more especially of 
those who in any way favor an open com- 
munion. It is this : All people who know 
what right is, know well that with all the- 
care taken to keep the church pure, it is 
far from being so. Bead Revelation, 2d 
and 3d chapters, and any one can see that 
such a state has existed from the first, and 
is to be found yet. To advocate and prac- 
tice open feasting is to wink at the faults of 
Christians, and to indulge them in sin. 



76 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

They being indulged thus will seek no re- 
form, for they have no rebuke, and feel that 
reform is not needed. They may feel that 
ihey are favored, and so they are, but it Is 
in sin, and it is no honor to the church, 
unless it admits that carnality is an honor 
to the Lamb's wife. Eev. 21 : 9-18. But 
her purity and holiness should be sought 
by all her members. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 7T 



. CHAPTER XIL 

IT IS PARTIAL. 

There is a point at which open com- 
munion must stop, and at which it does 
stop. 

As has been hinted before, the practice 
of open communion is not so liberal, after 
all that is said about it. Those who con- 
tend for it, never say to make it general, 
but only ask that it be practiced among 
neighbors who, though of different persua- 
sions, have a good feeling toward each 
other. And there is with all a point not 
far ahead where this feeling stops short off. 
Beyond this point it is all close communion. 
The desire to feast together does not arise- 
from a religious feeling so much as from 
that of a social nature. The social feeling 
in human nature is a very proper one, and 
we may well say it is indispensable to the 
happiness of the race. But great as is 
this gift, and happy as is the exercise of it, 
it has its proper bounds as well as any 
other feeling. No feeling should at any 
time be allowed to set aside the claims of 



78 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

law, for to do so is to govern man only by 
his passions. The Christian is not governed 
thus, for it is otten that his feelings must 
be disregarded, " crucified," in order to 
fully forsake all, for Christ's sake. "And 
whosoever doth not bear his cross and come 
after me can not be my disciple." Luke 
14: 26, 27. 

In those places and with those who do 
practice open communion it is not their re- 
ligious feelings that prompt this act, for if 
it were, I hardly think this one would be 
all that is prompted. Religion does not 
show itself in only one way, nor will the 
social religion be confined to one thing 
when it is in full exercise. But all men 
want to be thought social, even if they are 
not, and so some put on this appearance in 
their lovefeasts when it is seen no where 
else. Why this is I can not tell, unless it 
be to make others think that love is abound- 
ing, when in truth it is not. To throw 
aside all prejudice and discipline so as to 
feast together can not be objectionable, for 
this must be done in every case to have a 
feast of love ; but the fault is that all bad 
feeling is taken up again as soon as the 
feast is over, thus showing that the love 
and union is but momentary. To indulge 
bitterness and opposition by the year, and 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 79 

to show an apparent union for the moment 
is to show plainly which feeling predomi- 
nates. The one which lives longest must 
have more life than that which dies soonest, 
and of the last it is to be doubted whether 
it had a life at all. 

Open feasts imply open hearts, and that 
not for the moment, but for a lifetime. 
They imply love for all religion, for all peo- 
ple, and for all time. The principle does 
not embrace only a few neighbors, but all 
churches there represented, with their 
errors, both in doctrine and in practice. 
It allows no discrimination as to churches 
or individuals, for these, if taken at home, 
must be accepted abroad. It applies not to 
a few school-districts, but to all the world. 
It implies, I think, more than its warmest 
friends will allow for it. But let it imply 
what it may or what it can, the decline 
from truth down to error is so great and 
often so rapid, that this feeling of love and 
indulgence must stop somewhere, or else 
take in all the world, with all its religions 
and all its wrong. Let the reader ask him- 
self the question : If we can take the reli- 
gious w T orld without distinction, can we not 
take all the world in the same way? I 
think it quite as easy to take it all and 
thus enjoy ourselves socially to the utmost, 



80 CLOSE COMMuNION. 

as to take so large a part of it, and not 
take it all, and for this reason : There is no 
sin found in the outside world, as we call 
it, that is not found in the church, as it is 
called. And if we can indulge the princi- 
ple and the practice in the one, we can as 
well indulge them in the other. Ignorance, 
sin, and lack of faith, with all the fruits of 
darkness, are to be found everywhere, and 
are all off the same stalk wherever found, 
whether in the church or out of it. To 
cut off from the feast all the fruits of un- 
belief is to cut off at the same time a large 
part of the religious world, and to take all 
of the religious world as it now is, is to 
take all thei host of sin. 

With these facts in view, not one who 
pleads for open communion who does not 
in his mind have a point not far ahead at 
which he says, "thus far and no farther." 
From this point onward they all fall into 
line with the friends of close communion. 
In order that the reader may have some- 
thing more than my assertion merely, I 
cite the faith and the practice of our Meth- 
odist friends, who not only claim to be in 
favor of open communion, but are very free 
to condemn those who hold to close com- 
munion. I quote from their Discipline of 
1872, page 34: 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 81 

•'It is expected of all who desire to con- 
tinue in these societies that they should 
continue to evidence their desire of salva- 
tion. Thirdly, By attending upon all the 
ordinances of God. Such are, The public 
worship of God, The ministry of the Word, 
either read or expounded, The Supper of 
the Lord, Family and private prayer, 
Searching the Scriptures, Fasting or absti- 
nence." 

T[ 37. "These are the general rules 
of our societies, all of which we are taught 
of God to observe, even in his written word, 
which is the only rule, and. the sufficient 
rule, both of our faith and practice. And 
all these we know his spirit writes on truly 
awakened hearts. If there be any among 
us who observe them not, who habitually 
break any of them, let it be known unto 
them who watch over that soul as they who 
must give an account. We will admonish 
him of the error of his ways. We will 
bear with him for a season. But if then he 
repent not, he hath no more place among 
us. We have delivered our own souls. " 

It will be seen in Tf 36 that six duties 
are imposed. In T[ 37 it is told what 
shall be the result of a neglect of these, 
which is no less than the loss of member- 
ship. These, are faults in any professor, 
6 



82 CLOSE COMMCNION. 

but they are not generally treated as those 
that are criminal; but here they are so 
used, and the offending one is expelled for 
negligence. In Tf 42 the subject of com- 
munion is named as follows: "No person 
shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper 
among us who is guilty of any practice for 
which we would exclude a member of our 
church." 

By these rules none can be allowed to 
commune who do not attend worship, 
preaching, or the Supper of the Lord ; or 
if they do not attend to reading the Scrip- 
tures, to fasting, and to family and private 
prayer. These are required of the mem- 
bership, but while this is the rule, the 
practice is quite different, so much so that 
if we were strangers to either the faith or 
the practice of the church, we could not 
believe that they both belonged to the 
same church. I will now give the practice 
as has been observed here. And as we 
know the church to generally favor open 
communion in practice, and as we also 
know that human weakness is world wide, 
we conclude that the same practice prevails 
wherever the church is known, and that the 
same inconsistencies also appear. 

In the summer of 1858, if I mistake not, 
I was at a Methodist Quarterly Meeting, 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 83 

and when the time for the lovefeast had 
come the minister stated that all was now 
ready, and that they, as a people, were lib- 
eral in their practice, and so he would " in- 
vite all of other denominations who were 
in good standing in their churches." (These 
were his words.) Among the many that 
went up was a man well respected through- 
out his acquaintance, and a preacher, too, 
in the Universalist Church. Soon after 
taking his place among the kneeling guests 
a friend was sentjto tell him to go away, 
and I saw him go away. The minister 
justified his act by the rule of the discipline, 
but many in that congregation condemned 
him for an application of the same. 

In this case there was a public claim 
made to open communion, but still it was 
close communion, and that too of the posi- 
tive class. I only state the fact without 
further comment, and leave the reader to 
pass his own decision as to the merits of 
the case. 

In order to illustrate the workings of the 
system of open communion I notice, further, 
that the same discipline speaks of the treat- 
ment of other crimes in connection with 
neglect of duty. Charges for "Immoral 
conduct/' "Imprudent conduct/' "Dissen- 
sion/' "Disagreement in business/' and 



84 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

" Nonpayment of debts/' in addition to 
" Neglect of the means of grace," if sus- 
tained, are all dealt with as criminal, which 
is proper, and the offending one, if not sub- 
missive, is expelled. See Discipline of 1872, 
p. 132, f 324; pp. 134, 136, 138. After the 
treatment for these crimes has been set 
forth, we have this decision: "After such 
forms of trial and expulsion such .person 
shall have no privilege of Society or of 
sacraments in our church, without contri- 
tion, confession, and satisfactory reforma- 
tion." t 350, p. 139. 

Other portions of the work could be 
cited to show that a high degree of piety is 
sought for in theory, and we commend such 
a desire in any and in all, but the indul- 
gence of every fault here condemned, and 
that, too, in the sacraments of the church, 
is to do what we at once condemn. Our 
only wonder is that any who seek for a 
life of holiness should in any way advocate 
so loose a system as that of open com- 
munion, for no other plan could so effectu- 
ally set aside the rules of a church as that 
which makes those outside as good as those 
who are in it. By those decisions I have 
quoted above it will be seen that the com- 
munion v\ closed against those who, have 
fallen, and this is right, for there can not 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 85 

be purity of the lump without it, but that 
our Methodist friends should thus deny it 
to their own, and then invite others over 
whom they have no control whatever, and 
allow every one to be his own iudge as to 
fitness, is, in my judgment, an inconsistency 
too great to need any further comment. 

I wish it fully understood that I do not 
in any way fault a people for the restrictions 
laid on those in the wrong, for I do not, 
but I do fault them for setting aside those 
restrictions, and for thus making the crime 
to be no crime at all. "While speaking of 
inconsistency I notice this feature in an- 
other way. It is that we, as a people, are 
faulted for being close communionists in 
full, when all without any exception I know 
of, are close communionists in part, and 
some even carry it much farther than we. 

To illustrate this further, I cite another 
instance. We, as a people, admit all our 
membership who are not under censure for 
immoral conduct, and that, too, if baptized 
only a very short time before. But we 
notice that those who practice^infant bap- 
tism, and who also favor open communion, 
do not admit near all who are held as 
actual* members of the church. In proor 
of this I cite the Methodist Discipline 
again, f 54, page 41, which says : " We 



86 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

regard all children who have been baptized, 
as placed in visible covenant relation to 
God, and under the special care and super- 
vision of the church.' ' 

I think that a relation held as this is 
would be quite enough to admit any and 
all to the Lord's Supper, but yet it does not 
in the case above. Why this is I can not 
say, for if there be any connection with God 
nearer than a " visible covenant relation," 
I know not what or how it is. If any re- 
lation will or can admit more than this one, 
I know not of it. This view, which is held 
by Methodists and perhaps by others, I 
think, gives to us the worst form of close 
communion that I now know of, for it will 
not admit to communion all who are held 
as members, and those, too, who are admitted 
by all to be the most innocent. If baptism 
and innocence will give this happy relation 
to God and to membership, why not then 
admit them as the most worthy of all? 
We are faulted because we will not com- 
mune with those of our body who are 
under censure, but no one can say that we 
refuse to commune with any members who 
are as innocent as children. That is one 
degree in close communion we have not yet 
taken, and for that reason think our people 
are not so rigid as some have thought them. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 87 

We will at this place notice another 
thing for which our people have been often 
faulted, and that is what, by some, is called 
"avoidance." I referred to this subject 
above, and I now reply to the objection. 
This was referred to at another place also, 
but I bring it up here, as I think this is 
the most proper place to consider it. There 
is a view of this kind held by our people, 
and it in some cases has been carried into 
practical effect, and I am told, too, that it 
was with good results. This view was that 
the apostle's words, I. Cor. 5 : 11, latter 
clause, did not allow the membership to 
"keep company" with those guilty of the 
crimes named, not so much as to eat with 
them. And this has been carried into 
effect so fully in some cases as to meet this 
view exactly. There is, however, a differ- 
ence of opinion as to the extent of this re- 
striction, and this difference is found with 
others as well as among us, yet with every 
people who will admit that unfitness is pos- 
sible, all agree in saying that the crimes 
named by the apostle are sufficient to ex- 
clude any and all who were thus guilty 
from the Lord's table. There is no differ- 
ence whatever among professors as to the 
meaning of this verse (I. Cor. 5 : 11), but 
the only difference is as to the extent of it, 



88 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

— whether it means all tables or only the 
one. All are agreed, I believe, as to one, 
but not as to all. My own opinion is that 
it means just what it says, and for this 
reason: We are forbidden to "keep company" 
with such, and as we could not eat with 
them without being in their company, we 
lor that reason conclude that it applies to 
all tables,— to our own as well as to the 
Lord's table. If it does not apply thus to 
all tables, as many of our people think it 
should, I can not see in what way the priv- 
ilege of eating together could in any way 
be a favor to any when at the same time 
no one was allowed to keep company with 
one who was guilty of the crimes named. 
The one restriction tells what not to do, 
and the other tells how far to go with it, — 
not far enough to eat with them. To obey 
either one strictly and in full is, in my 
opinion, to make " avoidance," as it is 
called, very nearly, if not fully, complete. 
Wilson has it thus: "But now I write to 
you not to be associated with any one 
named a brother, if he be a fornicator, or 
a covetous person, or an idolater, or a re- 
viler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; 
with such a person not even to eat." 
However, let the extent of the punishment 
for these crimes be what it may as to com- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 89 

mon meals, it must be plain to all that the 
commission of any of these crimes renders 
the ones who are guilty unworthy of a 
place at the Lord's table, and that is " close 
communion " in the one body. For the 
guilty one to go off to another church and 
obtain a membership, because the crime is 
indulged there, and then to come back and 
partake with those of the first, in an open 
feast, as it is asked, is to virtually set aside 
all Gospel rule, and to say that the crime, 
be it what it may, is no crime at all. It is 
to set aside every restriction imposed on 
the church of God, and to allow that those 
not under law, and outside of the church, 
have more of its privileges than those who 
are within. What could be gained by let- 
ting the members of other churches come 
and partake and at the same time with our 
invitation, while we would not allow them 
to come at all, if members in our own 
church. It is an inconsistency, I think, 
not equalled by any other on the -list. It 
is a fault for which no good reason can be 
assigned. To have church government at 
all, to applaud the pious and to rebuke the 
faithless, there must be a penalty of some 
kind set to what is regarded as crime ; but 
if this penalty be known only in name, 
open communion will virtually take it all 



90 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

away. Here it is that professing people 
can well show their loyalty to. the govern- 
ment of God in applying all the restrictions 
imposed for and upon the members of his 
household. If correction is sought for by 
the upright, and it is their aim to punish 
evil doers (who abound everywhere), the 
work must not be rigid, it must be only a 
partial one ; for all those who are expelled 
from the many churches can find a home 
somewhere in the religious world, and then 
in open feasting come right back and par- 
take of the very things which had been 
denied them. This fault is not so much in 
the individual as in the system that in- 
dulges it. For if one be at fault in the 
church so much as to leave it, there is no 
fault he may not have when out of it. If 
we have a penalty for crime at all, we can 
not apply it to those who leave it without 
a trial. And at open communion these 
come back without rebuke. If we have no 
penalty to crime, then we have no govern- 
ment, and then our faith, if it can be so 
called, is as liberal as fallen man or Satan 
himself could ask for. When the penalties 
for breach of law are taken away, that 
government is not of God, for all his laws, 
both natural and revealed, have their pen- 
alties, and without repentance, confession, 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 91 

and a reformation, are sure to follow. 
These can not and will not follow where 
the crime is not regarded as a crime, for 
there the law has none to execute it. For 
that reason there is and can be no govern- 
ment. But where a government is sought 
for, there must be a law; that law must 
have a penalty, which must be applied in 
case said law is not respected, and what is- 
required must be regarded as a penalty for 
the crime. All who regard the act done to 
be a crime at all, must respect the sentence- 
passed. Those who do not so hold it, are 
not and can not be governed by the same 
law so long as its penalties are not regarded. 
They are not of the same government and 
therefore are not the same people, no matter 
what claim is laid. 

Law and order are of God. They are 
his ordinances, and the body, be it church 
or state, that will disregard these principles 
is not of God, and for that reason can not 
have his blessing. Any principle which is 
not set forth in the word of God does not 
come from him, and is therefore not of him. 
It is that which no Christian will have- 
See I. John 4: 3. "The law of the Lord 
is perfect." Psa. 19 : 7. In proof of what 
I have here said in regard to the govern- 
ment of churches, and in fact of all bodies 



"92 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

that claim to be governed by law, I cite 
the history of the reformation. Since that 
date church organizations have multiplied 
at a rapid rate, systems have been adopted 
and then have been thrown aside, so many 
changes have been made in both church 
and state rale, until at this time it can not 
be said of churches that they all regard 
any one crime to be a crime at all. The 
present condition ot popular religion, as it 
is called, and it is that which calls for open 
communion, is not at all flattering to the 
few who wish to have their hope fixed on a 
Bible basis. With that class the fear is 
that the laws laid down to govern the 
household of faith have all been well nigh 
set aside. 

The "earthly kingdom/' as we sometimes 
•call the church, has for the time been left 
in human hands for their management with 
what assistance they could obtain from the 
word of God, and of the Spirit of God 
which was given to help our understanding 
of the word. See John 14: 26; 16: 13. 
JBut great as was the favor to the race, I 
think the Qause has suffered much in conse- 
quence of an improper use of those heav- 
enly gifts, or as we should say, the cause 
has suffered because they (the gifts) were 
not used at all. For the lovers of the 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 93* 

truth to now bring the jewels of the church 
down to the dust at their feet, and to thus 
set aside the restrictions imposed, and 
widen the way to take a world of crime in, 
is, in my opinion, to hasten the time when. 
" iniquity shall abound, the love of many 
shall wax cold/' 

While I see no good that can result from! 
an open communion, as it is called, I do^ 
see, I think, enough that is not good to re- 
fuse it our sanction, at least until the prin- 
ciple be tested and those who practice it 
most have more time to show more prac- 
tical proofs of their love to the many who 
claim faith in the one Savior. When this 
is seen to be. general with this class, and it 
is seen, too, that they are more devoted ta 
all the commands that he gave, I shalL 
then *hink my present views premature. 



ii 



94 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR IT. 

For open love/easts, as they are catted, 
there can be no standard set up that is safe. 
It might be said, too } that there can be none 
that is just. 

In a former reason against it I said, and 
I think truly, too, that there is a point at 
which this feeling should stop, and at which 
it does stop. When the feeling stops, the 
practice, of course, also stops. No one 
will ask for it to go further than the 
feeling which prompts it. This being the 
condition in which it is found, it is then 
important to know where to stop. To know 
that we go far enough and not too far. To 
^rightly determine this point, and that too 
.at a time when our thoughts should be 
.more upon our God and upon ourselves 
than upon others, would, I fear, be one of 
those things that finite man can not do. 
I think it then to be not the place to make 
all the examination that is made as to fit- 
ness, whether it be in ourselves or in others.' 
If there be no more time given to the ex- 



CLOSE COMMUNION 95 

animation of one's self, or of the doctrines 
and lives of others, than that made when 
all is ready, it must, of course, be very 
rapid and imperfect. Men in business do 
not, as a general thing, hurry through their 
most important affairs; but if hurry is 
made, it is always with that of least im- 
portance. But here those who claim not 
to be doing business for time alone, but for 
eternity as well, will jump at conclusions, 
and do in a quick hurry the most solemn 
work in any way connected with the church 
of Christ. It is nothing less than to com- 
memorate the death of the one who founded 
the church and said, " This do in remem- 
brance of me." See Luke 22: 19; I. Cor. 
11 : 24. 

If an open feast is to be had, and it is 
proposed to invite the best of those present, 
I think it would depend much upon those 
appointed to make the selection, as some 
would do far more than others. I fear 
that what would be quite satisfactory 
to one would not be so to another, for, as 
we all know, one may think a brother to be 
a good man, but another may think him 
almost, if not a rascal in full. For this 
reason my choice could not in this case suit 
my brother, and his choice would not in 
all probability suit me. And to have a 



96 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

feast under these circumstances and call it 
a Christian lovefeast would be, I think, to 
have a close communion under false colors, 
unless we could have some one to make a 
selection to suit all. To find one to do it 
thus would be as difficult, I think, as to 
find the guests to suit all. When others 
can not suit themselves it is quite difficult 
for any other to do this for them. But, I 
ask, can it be done at all ? Can there be 
any way, or is there any way in which 
Christians in their present divided and un- 
feeling condition can be brought to one 
table and there feast together as the disci- 
ples of one Lord ? I answer, I think not. 
The eating and drinking could be done at 
one table, or with each other, but to do so 
as would become those who claim a disci- 
pleship in the school of Christ is not to be 
expected by any way yet discovered. If 
there is any way in which so great a work 
can be done, and that, too, in a way to have 
God's blessing on it, I hope the friends of 
open communion will consider and adopt it. 
I here suggest the thought that there is 
not in existence any rule, but one, which can 
be laid down and adopted to suit the wishes 
and feelings of all who partake, and that is 
the Gospel rule. But it provides for only 
one church, and can be applied in full only 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 97 

to the same. To apply it fully is to have a 
close communion, and that, too, of the 
strictest class. In that church it is not for 
one to examine another any further than 
outward acts speak, but the examination 
there to be made is to be applied to ourself. 
"But let a man examine himself, and so let 
him eat of that bread and drink of that 
cup." I. Cor. 11: 28. Some will have it 
that this last is all the standard that is 
needed, and that none other should be ap- 
plied, but that, in my opinion, would be to 
set aside all and every restriction that God 
has given. It is here that the government 
of the church, and of the world itself, has 
already suffered much in consequence of 
each man judging himself to be better than 
he was. I now leave this thought to be 
considered in the next chapter. 

If there then be no rule or standard by 
which to go in order to have open feasting 
between the many churches, and which can 
with satisfaction to all be applied to the 
many, it is then a question to know by 
what rule we can go to make a selection 
from among the so called orthodox churches. 
How shall a selection be made from among 
them so as to secure the enjoyment of a 
Christian lovefeast ? It is here again that 
the same difficulty is met. There is no 
7 



98 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

standard in full accepted by any outside of 
their own church, and very often not by all 
who are within it. There has as yet been 
no rule applied that I know of but to let 
each one invite his own friends — pick his 
own company and to have his own enjoy- 
ment of the feast all to himself or to the 
few thus chosen. It is here that open com- 
munion is seen to go just so far as one's 
feelings go, but no further. Beyond this 
point we all fall in upon the same path, that 
of restricted communion. From this it 
would appear that feeling is the standard. 
It would do well if it were not so often a 
blind guide. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 99 



CHAPTER XIY. 

EY IT WE MAKE OURSELVES THE JUDGE 
OF OTHERS. 

When we propose an open lovefeast, we 
thus seem to say that we think all others 
are as willing to partake with us as we are 
to feast with them. We thus judge of their 
feelings toward us, and also toward each 
other; and we thus seem to judge that all 
present are willing and ready to partake of 
those sacred emblems together. But it is 
here, I think, that a blunder is often made. 
For the professors present may think very 
well of us, but not very well of our church ; 
and they may think quite well of the 
church, but not well of us, its members, 
and this last would be a sad mistake. But 
the whole thought from first to last would 
seem to be from what was heard of it, that 
it was not the worthiness of others here to 
be manifested, but to have their approval 
upon us and upon our feast. We of course 
must judge from what we see and hear, 
and so the above conclusion has been made 
in my mind, whether it be right or wrong. 



100 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

If we are wrong we are ivrong, and it is 
our loss; but if the conclusion be correct, 
then a lovefeast under such conditions as 
the above does not seem to seek the ap- 
proval of God so much as that of ourselves 
and that of our neighbors. If this be the 
feeling w T ith any, whether for open com- 
munion or against it, a better one should 
be gained. Let us all first have the ap- 
proval of God, and if that of others then 
follows, so much the more to be glad for. 
But if we, to have the favor of God, bring 
on us the displeasure of our fellows, let us 
never give up the one to secure the other. 
" Blessed are they which are persecuted for 
righteousness' sake." Matt. 5 : 10. 

Another feature of this is, that those who 
favor it in practice, and for the time make 
all allowance for the failures both in the 
faith and in the practice of those who par- 
take with them, do oiten seem to lose in a 
very short time all forbearance toward 
those who do not belong to the same church 
with themselves, and so much so as to then 
ridicule both the faith and practice of those 
who had so lately feasted with them. I 
speak of this here because I have seen and 
heard and have wondered how it was that 
any who claimed piety at all could have 
one feeling so warm, and then in so short a 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 101 

time have another so different. For a little 
time all allowance is made for the faith and 
wrongs of others, but in an hour they can 
make none. How two decisions can be 
passed upon the same person for the same 
thing, and by the same judge, and that, too, 
in so short a time, is indeed not known to 
me. We are allowed by scripture to pass 
our judgment, but always under restric- 
tions, — only one kind of judgment. "Judge 
not according to the appearance, but judge 
righteous judgment." John 7: 24. By 
this rule no two decisions can be put upon 
the same thing at the same time, and be 
both according to truth. Justice alloios 
but one. If one is thought good enough 
to feast with, his faith and his practice 
should then pass without censure. But if 
these are to be condemned and corrected, 
by all means let this be done before the 
feast is had. To feast with those who are 
in error as to doctrine, or in practice, is to 
have them think that all is approved; 
but if they be denied a place at the Lord's 
table, as it is often called, and they know 
too the reason why it is so, they are then 
much more apt to examine themselves as 
to their faith and practice, than if all was 
indulged by open feasting. 

It is proper here, I think, to notice again 



102 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

an argument often used in favor ot open 
feasting, and I believe it to he the only 
scripture I have ever heard used in favor 
of the practice. It is this: that each one 
should "examine himself and so let him 
eat." It is claimed that this is all that is 
necessary, and that it is to be made by each 
one and that only for himself. In part this 
is true, and in part it is not. Self-exam- 
ination can and should go further than any 
other can go, but yet it may not go far 
enough, for human nature is very partial 
in the disposition of its own wrongs. To 
have a proper decision upon some acts, we 
must have other than the mind of him who 
committed them. Criminals are not always 
thought competent to dispose of their own 
capes. It is not because mercy will not be 
fully applied, bnt because of the wrong 
that is sure to be indulged. And so in this 
case indulgence is far more apt to prevail 
than the laws of justice. For that reason 
I think self-examination not all that should 
be had, although I think it can more readily 
determine our real condition than any other. 
It can show, if we will, our true relation 
both to God and to man, the state of our 
affections, their class, and also their bounds, 
and it can know our desires and also our 
intentions. But I think this is field enough 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 103 

foi one "to dress and to keep/' and as far 
as the decision is likely to be impartial. 
I at one time thought that self-examination 
should embrace our faith in the Son of God, 
but I now conclude that we may even be 
mistaken in this, — may think we have faith 
in his blood, when it is only our assent to 
the fact that he died. To assent to this 
fact is not enough to give us a living faith 
(and the world is full of that kind which 
assents), but we need a faith which believes 
tliat Jesus died, and that he died for us, — 
died that we might live. When faith is 
found of this class and to this extent, it 
can always be seen by that which is done. 
Love can not be long felt, even to a small 
degree, without some expression of it being 
conveyed to others. And so it is with our 
love to Jesus ; it can not be indulged long 
nor much without the knowledge of some 
one else. And the reason is plain. Affec- 
tion for others or for another does not seek 
our own pleasure so much as that of the 
one loved. To please them is our happi- 
ness, and we seek nothing more than to 
hear their wish and to do it. We feel that 
we can not love as we wish, unless we do 
something to please the one loved. This is 
the feeling that is especially felt by all who 
love Jesus. Tliev all want to do- something 



104 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

for him, as he has done so much for them. 

And just here he proposes a test of our 
love to him, when he says : "If ye love me, 
keep my commandments." It is' here that 
the passion we claim to have is made visible, 
and in doing this our faith is shown — not 
so much to God, nor to ourselves, as to our 
neighbors and friends, with not a little even 
to our enemies. James says: "Show me 
thy faith without thy works,, and I will 
show thee my faith hj my works." This is 
faith's only test, but it is a sieve one. In 
this way it is shown that the pearl is pos- 
sessed. But there is danger that we may 
think ourselves in possession of it, when we 
are not, — have only the shell. We may 
think that because we fast, and pray, and 
pay tithes, and try to feel all that a heart 
can feel, that sure enough the jewel is ours. 
To prevent a condition so awful we must 
examine ourselves as to our motives and 
intentions, when w T e do well. If it be for 
the glory of God,— '-for the love of the 
right, then all is well, and we have the ap- 
proval of both God and man. 

It should not be so much a question as to 
who, or how many, are worthy to partake 
with us, as to know that we ourselves are 
allowed to come. Open communionists 
seem to judge all worthy who may think 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 105 

themselves so, while close communionists 
hold that none are of themselves worthy, 
but that it is only through grace that any 
are thus allowed to partake of the Lamb 
of God. I think there is little danger of 
close communion being too strict, and keep- 
ing any away who are in full relation, and 
who are worthy, while I do fear that open 
communion will admit and indulge many 
who may judge themselves so very worthy 
as to entirely overlook the solemn event 
celebrated. 

Before leaving the subject of self-exam- 
ination, I wish to offer a few more thoughts, 
with a su^estion. If the work of self-exam- 

on 

ination was thorough in each and in every 
case, there would be need of no other. 
But here is a commandment as frequently 
overlooked, perhaps, as any other, and as 
examination mast be had, and as some fail 
to do it altogether, and others do it so par- 
tially, it then becomes the duty of the body 
to examine its members in particular. It 
is the life of the body that is now sought 
for, and if it can retain all its members, 
with love and life in every one, it is well 
for the body and for all; but if any mem- 
ber is or can be made of no advantage to 
the whole, then to cut off is the only rem- 
edy. If the only examination to be had 



106 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

was that by the member at fault, and it to 
be made and executed by him alone, I 
think that amputation would seldom occur. 
Withdrawals are quite common, we know, 
but it is more often done for the advantage 
of the individual, as it is thought, than for 
that of any or all others. Not many with- 
draw from the body of their own accord, 
that it may be a purer, holier lump. We 
see it that those who withdraw mostly do 
so to spite somebody else — to gain some- 
thing for themselves with others, or to pre- 
vent a public trial and condemnation. Self 
is at the head of the fault, and there is apt 
to be too much of it to leave for any cause 
but its own. 

I offer another thought on self-examina- 
tion. One fact is that faults are committed, 
and that, too, by many who have taken the 
Christian name. These in many cases, 
when reproved for the wrong done, will at 
once confess the act, and admit that it was 
wrong, but will ask more for its indulgence 
than for its removal, — will plead ignorance, 
little faith, and the host of besetments, but 
it is not often that any will own right up 
and say that it was passion, lust, covetous- 
ness, or envy, — in a word, sin that prompted 
the whole of it. The indulgence of this 
seems to be sought for, and any plea that 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 10T 

will bring it is sure to be applied. For 
this reason I think self-examination good, 
when it goes far enough, but if it in any 
case will indulge a wrong, then it is not 
enough. I now suggest that we all look at 
our own minds and hearts, and let others 
pass upon our lives. I trust that all will 
see that self-examination is not enough, 
though we think it a duty so proper, and 
one that should at no time be lost sight of r 
yet, when it is all that is had, many faults 
pass untouched, for the one who is in the 
fault never sees himself in that light. Hi$ 
brethren, or a neighbor, and sometimes his 
enemy, must do that for him; and if reproof 
and correction ever come to him it must 
come from another. This must often be 
done by the body, if it would have peace 
and purity in its fold, when these wrongs 
are made right or the member cut off — yes, 
cut off from the church, and from nothing 
so much as from the lovefeast, and that,, 
too, because unworthy of it. 

Now this method and the only remedy 
for all hopeless cases can be applied no 
further than in his own church. For if we- 
know of the faults of those in other churches, 
\*e, although we can talk about them, cart 
do nothing to correct them. If their 
church will let the faults pass without re- 



108 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

buke, we must also let them pass, be they 
what they may. For this reason we oppose 
open lovefeasts and think them calculated 
to do no good, but rather to do harm. 
They do harm, because reproof and correc- 
tion are not and can not be applied. 

I repeat the argument in favor of open 
feasting, "that each one should examine 
himself and so eat," and ask why it is that 
the friends of it do not let the examination 
rest there? Why not let it stay where 
they put it? If one is thought good 
•enough to feast with, he ought also to be 
thought good enough to judge of himself, 
especially when that is the only rule given 
him — the only restriction that is laid. But 
no, each one must still have his decision, 
■and pass it, and that, too, quite audibly. 
The one decision is not enough, although 
made in candor; but others must still have 
their opinions, and not unfrequently com- 
pare them. More than one decision is 
passed upon all such subjects, and no mat- 
ter how penitent the erring one may have 
felt when trying to celebrate the Lord's 
•death, yet each one held his opinion, and 
had no more respect for the other who had 
thus judged himself than was had before. 
A decision thus fixed is not to be revoked 
by our merely seeing the accused party 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 109 

go to the Lord's table. To thus see one 
have a desire to bury the past does not 
always change a verdict already made. 
And I have heard it from those who favor 
open feasting that they had wondered, often, 
how such and such ones could partake as 
they did. With a heart of true penitence, 
and with a knowledge of a condition such as 
the above, what must be the feelings of an 
erring one who would thus partake! I 
think that to them it would be anything 
but a lovefeast. To prevent a condition 
such as the above, the church should come 
together, and then every charge should bo 
heard, confession or innocence should be 
obtained, and all who sought a reformation 
should be forgiven, while those who are 
obstinate should be set back. When such 
a condition is obtained then the tomahawk 
should be buried to rise no more, and then 
it is, and only then, that there can be a 
lovefeast. There could then be a feast of 
love, because that feeling had been indulged, 
and in a much better way than merely in 
eating together. The sacrament, as we 
believe, is not to feast with the Lord, but 
to partake of him in spirit, and ivith each 
other, and to thus celebrate his death till 
he comes, which event, from the signs noAV 
seen, can not be far in the future. See 



110 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Matt. 24: 6, 7. To have a feast of love 
we must have that feeling for each other 
before the table is approached, for if we 
have it not till the table is reached, going 
there will not make love. If we all go 
there without love each for the other, we 
for that reason will not and can not have a 
feast of love. Feasting together will in- 
crease our love which we had before, but it 
will not make it. 

Before I leave the subject of examination 
I will offer one other thought. It is this : 
Those who favor open feasting seem to 
judge others better than they are, or better 
or more worthy of the feast than they may 
think for themselves. They invite others 
to come and partake with them, and the 
request being urgent and for fear of being 
thought illiberal by those who are called 
liberal, they come and partake because 
others do. Here is no examination of self 
had at all, and it is only to please others 
that they come. It is no feeling of worthi- 
ness that prompts it, but for fear of being 
thought more unworthy than what they are. 
Should we not call this "eye-service" and 
"men-pleasing?" Here are two faults in- 
stead of one, for it is a fault to come to 
please others, and the system that indulges 
it is also at fault. It may be asked why it 



CLOSE COMMUNION. Ill 

is we oppose open communion so strongly. 
I reply that we are sure it is to indulge 
sin, and the Lord knows, and we, too, that 
sin needs no indulgence. It has already 
toA much now. 



112 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XV. 

IT ALLOWS TOO MUCH. 

Open feasts admit all sects, and so admit 
of all doctrines. If it does not admit all, 
it is not free communion. 

This has been offered before, but I call 
it up here again in my reasons against an 
open feast. Not many will admit all^tated 
in the leading sentence, for not many can 
admit of all doctrines, and I do not see 
how one with mind at all could do so ; but 
we are now dealing with the principle, 
either in full or in part, and my aim is to 
show that we, as a people, do not seek or 
claim to sanction all that-is held by the reli- 
gious world, nor a very large part of them, 
and we do not allow our practice to go very 
far beyond our sentiment. That others do 
this in open feasting Lthink I have shown, 
and I think, too, that it is shown at every 
time when there is an open feast. I leave 
the prefix love off, for I believe love is found 
only where there is agreement or union, and 
think it needless to apply it where these, 
its fruits, are not seen. I state it as a fact, 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 113 

which I think all will admit, that there are 
now and have long been far too many sects 
of religion in the world for the saving of 
the world. And I feel, too, that it will 
never be charged to the race that they did 
not have enough plans of religion, for it 
would be difficult, I think, to conceive of 
any more. There may indeed be a blend- 
ing of doctrines, a shearing of principles, 
but to get up others of purely raw fabric, 
is not at all likely. To speak in a general 
way we might say that the world is too 
religious — has too many religions, but has 
not enough religion — has an over-abundance 
of it in theory, but not near enough of it 
in character. Men seem in this to think 
that much of a bad thing is better than a 
little ot a good thing. It is the bulk ap- 
parently that is sought ior, and not the 
class, as should be. But so it is. The 
race is again deceived because it is "pleas- 
ant to the eyes," and I fear the mistake 
will not be discovered till life's work is 
done and the judgment-day has come. 

Some tell us that "this is a world of va- 
riety, and that every one has a right to his 
own opinion." As to its being a world of 
variety, I grant it, but I claim that it is 
man, as he now is, who makes so great a 
variety. But admitting that we have a 
8 



114 CLOSE COMMUNION.. 

world of variety does not say that we 
should have a thousand ways for the saving 
of sinners, or that every man's opinion is 
enough to save himself. We are not saved 
by opinions, nor by opinion alone, even as 
"man shall not live by bread alone, but by 
every word that proceedeth out of the 
mouth of God." Dent. 8:3; Matt. 4: 4. 
. There is, I believe, a "great salvation" 
provided for our lost race, but that does 
not allow that it is to be applied by a 
thousand nor a dozen different methods, 
and that, too, in just such a way as a man's 
fancy will dictate. Had it been made a 
matter of fancy, I think that these had all 
been made out, while "they sought out 
many inventions." Eccl. 7: 29. But, no! 
it is from heaven. Piety, the precious fruit 
of pure religion, is not so well secured in 
so many ways as it would be in the one 
right way, because that which will secure 
it for one will secure it for all, and that, 
too, without them going so many roads to 
get it. The favor of God can be obtained 
without assuming any relation but one, — 
that of a disciple (learner), and to accept 
of the one message, that of the truth. 
"Thy word is truth." Then it is that the 
learner's profiting appears unto all. When 
he has the truth he is right. When all 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 115 

get it then all are right, and nothing is 
heard of a world of churches, for we have 
but the one church. It is not the truth 
which makes so many sects, but it is the 
error. With light to our path one can 
walk straight up to the object sought for, 
but it is in the darkness that the many 
crooked paths are made. And so in this, 
it is nothing less than darkness which 
would invent so many roads to heaven. 
"I am the way, 11 means but one way. So 
great a variety in what is assumed to be 
the worship of God is better suited to in- 
dulge the perverted tastes and follies ot 
men than to secure any other one object. 
And not any will or can allow that all the 
different views upon any subject of Bible 
truth is at all proper. Therefore some and 
indeed many of the views held must be 
wrong. It may be that all are wrong, but 
it can not be that all are right, from the 
fact that not many hold the same view, or 
hold it in the same way. Union and com- 
munion imply much more than merely a 
desire to be united. This being the sad 
condition in which the religious world is at 
present placed, I ask why it is that there is 
any claim laid to union at all. If it is 
found among the many who claim it, I 
know not of it, and to claim unity when an 



116 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

open feast is had is to be united for the 
moment and divided by the year. A cat 
and dog could do as well, if not better. In 
order to have an open feast and to have it so 
that it could be called a Christian lovefeast, 
it would be most proper, I think, to have 
those come who hold the same faith and 
who have it in the same way. But much 
as this has been prayed for by the many 
now living and those who are dead, such a 
feast is not possible yet, for a proper con- 
dition has not yet been realized. And 
those who may agree upon some point of 
doctrine or practice, do not agree upon 
anything else. It may be a question 
whether there is more than one doctrine 
taught in the Gospel. But let that be as it 
may, the professing world do not all con- 
sider it, or any one of them, alike. If the 
Bible has but one doctrine, some take more 
of it than others do, while it is to be greatly 
feared that no one takes it all. If there be 
in it more than one doctrine, the chances 
for division of mind are so much the more 
increased, so that, take it as we may, not 
any of the many religious bodies in the 
world are agreed upon any one of the most 
important truths of God's book. It is true 
that some might be brought together who 
believe some things in the same way., but 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 117 

upon others they are as far apart as Jew 
and Gentile — may be together on some one 
thing, but far apart on everything else. 
All can not be admitted to one feast because 
of the great extremes between them, and 
the same extremes are to be found among 
those who are now admitted. One need 
not go to China, or to Salt Lake City, to 
find the extremes in doctrine, for these can 
be found here. And we may well ask where 
it is that these can not be found ? For 
this reason open feasts are not lovefeasts. 
There are as great differences between the 
so-called popular churches, that is, if their 
disciplines, creeds, etc., are any index to 
their faith, as between midnight and noon. 
It is because of these many and great dif- 
ferences that many have at once discarded 
the whole system of revelation, and have 
become its enemies, instead of its friends. 
Some take a part of the truth and oppose 
so bitterly all who do not see as they see, 
that others have thrown it all away, and 
now oppose the whole plan. Satan's work 
could not succeed better than under the 
present management. It allows men all 
the religions they want, and the powers of 
darkness get all the glory. 

But some may tell us that the doctrines, 
creeds, etc., as heretofore set forth, are no 



118 . CLOSE COMMUNION. 

index to the faith of the churches now, and 
that the feeling for each other is now more 
liberal and still improving. If this be true, 
I am glad of it, but I doubt it much. And 
because I do doubt the improvement in 
feeling, I will ask, Why then have so many 
different organizations ? Why not drop off a 
few hundreds ? And why not revise those old 
and illiberal creeds, if the feeling and faith 
are not what they once were ? But not so. 
Instead of a decrease in the number of 
church organizations, they are rapidly on 
the increase. If the feeling between 
churches is now so good, why not blend a 
few scores of them together and thus do 
away with so much confusion — so much 
cost and so many small congregations, and 
so little of that holy influence which the 
world has so long been asking for? I 
think the inducements for a rapid change 
quite enough for us to press the claim. It 
would most assuredly afford us all much 
pleasure to know that all believed the 
Word, practiced it in the same way, and- 
all. belonged : to the same church. It would 
be some pleasure, too, I think, to know and 
feel that our feasts were then consistent, in 
union with each other throughout, and 
were really what their name is, love} 'easts. 
I urge it again, let the change be made. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 119 

Let the churches all be fused into one glo- 
rious church with Christ at its head, and 
then-all that can now only be anticipated 
will be fully realized — >will all "be made 
perfect in one, that the world may know 
that thou hast sent me, and hast loved 
them as thou hast loved me," John 17 : 
23. Just at this point I meet with an ar- 
ticle in the Methodist Recorder, and copied 
from the London Christian Signal, in 
which the names of the different leading 
branches of the Methodist Church in Eng- 
land, Canada, and the United States, are 
given. Twenty-one branches are here 
named, while others are referred to, and 
the article closes with this remark : 

"It is a remarkable fact that, subdivided 
as Methodists are into so many sections, 
each has been faithful to the doctrine of 
Methodism as it was preached by Mr. 
Wesley, and this for a period extending 
over more than a century and a quarter. 
Of the numerous divisions that have taken 
place during that time, not one has been 
caused by divergence from doctrine, but 
all on church discipline and order." 
; What we find in this that is so remark- 
able to us is, that a score of sections can 
all have the same faith, and that, too, for 
over a hundred years, and yet not be one 



120 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

organization. The doctrine of Mr. Wesley 
is most remarkable, too, from the fact that 
it will allow of so many ways to apply it 
and still be the same thing — will adapt it- 
self to everybody, and in every way, and for 
so long a time. Bat this is more than ean 
be said of most principles that are true, for 
we must adapt ourselves to them, and not 
them to us. And we had much rather hear 
of all Methodists adapting themselves to 
both the doctrine and life of Mr. Wesley, 
t'han to hear of them adapting these to 
them, as is here being done. 

I offer one more remark upon this divided 
condition in which the labor of Mr. Wesley 
is now seen. Such a state could not have 
come, had all been faithful to the doctrine 
and practice of the great reformer, for I 
believe his practice, in the main, to have 
been consistent with the doctrines taught, 
and if this had been faithfully observed by 
all his followers, there had been no twenty 
ways in which to follow the one man. But 
why boast of loyalty to a man, — Mr. Wes- 
ley, or any other? Why not rather lay 
claim to the doctrines and life of one Jesu§ 
Christ, and strive to be faithful to the Word 
as preached by him, the Lord from heaven? 
But no, it is the spirit to follow our prefer- 
ences that makes division, and this- makes 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 121 

parties, or churches, as at the church ot 
Corinth; and tD indulge this, open feasting 
is practiced, not so much to create love, or 
because there is love, but to have it at 
least in word, and in appearance, but not 
in reality. Everybody knows there is 
division, strife, opposition, and confusion, 
and any method that will attempt to cover 
up the wrong without first removing it, is 
to allow more than is right. The apostle 
James seems to have foreseen the present 
workings and spoke of them thus: "But if 
ye have bitter envying and strife in your 
hearts, glory not, and lie not against the 
truth. This wisdom descendeth not from 
above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 
For where envying and strife is, there is 
confusion and every evil work." James 3 : 
14, 16. 

Before closing my remarks on this sub- 
ject I will ask one more question. If love 
be so great or so much as to commune with 
all Christian churches, why is it that there 
is so much bitterness against those who 
may leave off in one church and go and 
join some other church? If there can be 
Christians in one as well as in the other, 
and liberty of thought be granted to all, 
why then deal with those w r ho apply this 
feeling as though they were heretics? If 



122 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

we can fellowship the church and love it, 
we ought to love and fellowship all who 
join it. But if we can not love all who are 
in another church, why do we then have an 
open feast and invite that church with its 
members ? It is to be hoped that all pro- 
fessors will try to be more practical in their 
religion, and that their love will not be ap- 
plied so partially, but with at least some 
more consistency than is being done at 
present. 

The principle which is offered in this 
chapter is, that "open feasting allows too 
much/' I should have said that it claims 
more, and much more than it will reduce 
to practice. For it does not approve of 
character, but of relation. It seems to 
take it for granted that all who have the 
church relation have also the Christian 
character, and as such they are worthy to 
partake of a Christian feast. But this con- 
clusion, or any practice that favors it, is a 
mistaken one, as I think I have already 
shown. But if we apply the rule, not to 
relation, but to character, and then admit 
the best of the best churches to one and 
the same table, the same rule will also ad- 
mit the best of those who make no pro- 
fession at all,— those who are known every- 
where as "outsiders." The reason is a 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 123 

plain one, for the popular churches of to- 
day tell us that many of the plainest com- 
mandments in the Bible are not important, 
— not essential to salvation, and we need 
not to take a score of the leading churches r 
in both doctrine and practice, till they will 
set aside almost, if not altogether, all the 
commandments which Jesus taught. And 
to admit them to a feast, with that faith, is 
to admit a majority of all the "outsiders"" 
in the land. For the principle that will set 
aside any truth or obligation, will, if ap- 
plied in full, set them all aside. 

Man's faith is so varied that I think it 
has well nigh covered all the ground, both 
of truth and error; and while all may have 
a little that is good, each may have much 
that is not. Some may not know what 
truth they have. We make the claim then 
that all those doctrines that are not of the 
Bible are not the truth, — are not the mind 
of God, but are the "doctrines of devils, ,r 
and if in our feasts a majority of these pre- 
vail, or if even a large part of these are 
seen or felt, the feasting is then not at the 
"Lord's table," but at the "table ot devils." 
It is the principles held by those who feast r 
whether of truth or error, which deter- 
mine most positively the character of the 
feast, and the spirit which governs it tells- 



124 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

plainly whose table it is. It is the truth, 
both in faith and in practice, which makes 
it the " Lord's table," but it is error, either 
in faith or in practice, that makes it a 
^'table of devils." This being true, I ask, 
how can we blend the two together so as 
to have a "Lord's lovefeast," and it made 
up of truth and error ? I think and will 
say, it can not be done, nor do I favor any 
system which attempts it. But while this 
is my feeling, I do not wish any to think 
that I would approve of all who may feast 
without fear at our own tables, or that I 
condemn any who feast with fear to God at 
others, for this is not my feeling. I am 
now opposing any and all efforts that will 
jumble all creeds, doctrines, and relations 
into one heap long enough to eat together, 
and that will then give to it the name of a 
"Lord's lovefeast." If there be error in 
-any or in all when the feast is had with 
themselves, it will by no means take it 
&way to unite them with others and have 
but one feast. It makes the mistakes to be 
greater, because it destroys all relations, 
but gives no other than that of no relation, 
-either to God or man. 

If we call up the condition of those who 
built the Tower of Babel, after their lan- 
guage was confused, we can conceive in 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 125 

some measure, the condition of the churches 
and their members in what they call "open 
lovefeasts." After the confusion of tongues 
had taken place, each individual must stay 
with his own family to have any intercourse 
whatever. This state not only destroyed 
his happiness, but also cut off his relation r 
not with God, nor his own family, but with 
all other families. They had close com- 
munion then to the full extent, a.nd there- 
was, I believe, no more of a selfish spirit 
seen then than before. And now it is not 
a confusion of languages so much as confu- 
sion of religions. The world is to-day, 
and has been for centuries, more confused, 
divided, and distracted upon the subject 
of religion and the exercise of it, than upon 
any other or all other subjects. And such 
is the condition yet. For the religious 
people of to-day to attempt to unite the 
many churches, with all their differences, 
both in their faith and in their practice, is 
to bring about a condition like unto what 
would have occurred at Babel, if the fami- 
lies there had all come together. In the- 
one the confusion would have been so great 
that one could have doubted whether he 
had a language at all, and in the other it is 
to be doubted whether some have faith or 
religion at all. The only thing which could 



126 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

be done at Babel, under the circumstances, 
was to separate, not in feeling, but in their 
work, the mighty tower of their foolishness, 
which they were building, and then each to 
remain and work with those who had the 
same language with himself. And so in 
this. It is a sad thing to the cause of Jesus 
that there is so much division and confusion 
-among those who all claim to be his fol- 
lowers; but the best now that can be done 
is for each to try to build a tower that the 
hord will approve of, and not try to unite 
so many factions to build what neither God 
nor man will approve. With this view of 
the subject, the "Dunkard People," as they 
are called,, wish to stop where all have the 
same doctrine as near as can be obtained, 
— to stop where we think we have a right 
to say whether a brother's faith, or his life, 
or both, are right or wrong, and if either 
or all do not, as we think, agree with the 
law from heaven, where we can have a 
right to instruct, reprove, and correct as 
may be needed. This is our practice, and 
we find that with all the care thus taken, 
error in belief and mistakes in life are far 
too common. For the reason that with all 
our care we are none too pure, and because 
the religious world around us is not in any 
better condition than we ourselves, and 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 127 

above all because love, either little or much, 
does not exist between churches as bodies, 
we wish to go no further in this than we 
do. We feel that we have safe reasons for 
the present practice, while as yet we know 
no reason for a change. If those who claim 
so much for open feasting were most loyal 
to the commands of Jesus, then we ought 
to be silent. But to overdo one thing and 
to undervalue many others, is not, I think, 
the best way in which to show an attach- 
ment to any cause. Jesus said, "If ye 
love me, keep my commandments/' and we 
believe this to be by far the best evidence 
of both love and faith that is known. We 
ca,n show our loyalty in no other way, 



128 CLOSE COMMUNION, 



CHAPTER XVI. 

IT ALLOWS TOO MUCH. 

This practice of open communion seems 
to justify every one who will admit the one 
fact "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
I have before referred to this same subject, 
but I call it up here again to show that 
with no more than this for a standard we 
may admit everything else. And I would 
ask any friend to open feasting to tell us 
how one could be unworthy of a place at 
the Lord's table, if to make the one con- 
fession was enough to admit the one that 
made it ? If that be enough to make one 
worthy, what is it that will make him un- 
worthy? One can not then become un- 
worthy of it by any other means possible 
than to be a downright infidel or sceptic. 
This confession or admission will admit 
thousands who make no profession, and will 
allow back again to church fellowship the 
many who have back-slidden, and it will 
also admit legions of devils, all to commem- 
orate our Lord's death. To give this reason 
for open feasting, and it to be the best one, 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 129 

is, I think, to set up a standard that is far 
from being a safe one, because it would al- 
low of no distinction between saint and 
sinner, good and bad, the pious and the 
impious. This rule, if applied in general, 
would disband every church in existence, 
set aside every proper relation, destroy 
every church ordinance, — that of the com- 
munion itself, — for if to assent to one fact is 
enough to admit to this table, why should 
we have a table at all ? If this one truth 
will do so much, what further need is there 
of anything more ? But it is not enough, 
and is a reason against an open feast, be- 
cause of the spirit of presumption to be 
seen with those who advocate and practice 
open feasting. 

The feast is in all cases dedicated to the 
Lord, and it is then presumed that all who 
partake of it do also belong to the Lord's 
household. If this was not the opinion 
held of those who partake, it would be in 
the highest degree disrespectful to the 
Master to invite those who were not of his 
family. And to believe one's self in the 
Lord's family is not enough to admit any. 
It is then important to know what the 
Lord has said upon the subject of admis- 
sion, and to admit none but those whose 
admission is therein legalized. If we do 



130 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

admit more than the Lord has authorized, 
it then ceaseth to be the Lord's table; and 
irom the fact that his wish is not respected. 
His table belongs only to his own family. 
And to set aside his word upon the subject 
is to put aside his mind or wish, which is 
to show at once that the Master of the 
feast, to whom it is said to be offered, is 
f not to have the honor of it. His approval 
is not sought. 

As soon as the feast is dedicated to the 
-Lord, the partaking of it is at once re- 
stricted to the Lord's household, be they 
who they may, and to be taken of by none 
but the Lord's people. And the only thing 
vthat I see necessary to be done further is, 
that each one should carefully consider 
whether or not he is sound in the faith, has 
kept himself pure, and is resolved to be 
faithful until death. This he must do for 
himself, as no one else can do it for him. 
*"Let a man examine himself and so let 
trim eat." If his relation and life are 
proper, he has a right to partake. It is his 
*duty to partake. But if his relation is not 
proper, or if once proper, but now lost by 
transgression, or by unfaithfulness, he can 
bave no right whatever to partake of it, 
and all the powers of earth combined can 
;not give it to him, for the table does not 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 131 

then belong to earth. It belongs then to 
the Lord from heaven, and to such as he 
will invite. When the table is given away 
to the Lord, it is not for men to say who 
shall approach it; but the word of God 
directs how and what to do. It requires 
that all must partake to have life (John 6 : 
53), and this is a necessity. But there is 
danger that it may be partaken of un- 
worthily; and to prevent this an examina- 
tion is had, both by the church and also by 
ourselves, as has been before shown, to pre- 
vent if possible the awful consequences 
mentioned in I. Cor. 11 : 27-30. It would 
then seem that we do not partake to merely 
please others, but to obtain life, and that 
abundantly, and to celebrate the death of 
him who gives the life. I give the restric- 
tion in full for fear that some one may not 
look to see what is said. 

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and 
drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's 
death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever 
shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of 
the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
body and blood of the Lord. But let a 
man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
that bread, and drink of that cup. For he 
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- 



132 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

cerning the Lord's body. For this cause 
many are weak and sickly among you, and 
many sleep. For if we would judge our- 
selves, we should not be judged. But when 
we are judged we are chastened of the 
Lord, that we should not be condemned 
with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, 
when ye come together to eat, tarry one 
for another. And if any man hunger let 
him eat at home; that ye come not together 
unto condemnation." 

There are two points which must be 
made before even self-examination will ap- 
ply. We are to come into the church as 
our Lord would have us come, and we are 
then to maintain that relation by doing 
what the Lord would have us do. The 
church will most likely know these things 
better than we ourselves do, and should ap- 
prove and admit us, if these are proper, 
but disapprove and refuse us, if not. But 
it is here that self-examination comes in, 
and should in every case be applied, but 
can go no further than to look to our faith 
and to our determination, for none can 
know these but ourselves and our God; 
and these, if not right, will render any one 
unworthy, although our brethren may ap- 
prove and admit us. The Gospel does pro- 
vide for the one church, and commands self- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. • 133 

examination, bat it is still confined to the 
one church, — applies to no more, and in 
this one points out no less than six classes 
which are not to be admitted at all. See 
I. Cor. 5: 11. It is not to be presumed 
that all the tables dedicated to the Lord 
are for that reason the Lord's tables, nor is 
it so that all who may lay claim to be of 
his household are for that reason members 
of his family. If this were enough to give 
any and all a place in the Lord's family and 
at his table, then self-examination would in 
all cases be enough. We would then need 
no more. If worthiness of any favor rested 
merely upon our view of the subject, and 
the decision we would m all cases pass upon 
our right to the enjoyment of it were 
enough to secure it, there are but few if 
any favors we would not get. If faith in 
the benefit of and the desire to partake 
were enough to give worthiness of charac- 
ter, not many favors would be denied. 
Heaven itself, with all its enjoyments, will 
be sure to nearly all the race, for quite all 
believe there is a heaven, and all have a 
longing desire to possess it. 

From Jesus' own language we learn that 
mere belief is not enough to secure for its 
possessor a proper relation with his Savior, 
and that the doing of many wonderful 



134 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

works is not enough to secure it. And if 
our relation to Jesus is built upon nothing 
more than a desire to love him, and some- 
thing we may have done in his name, then 
will we hear at that day, "I never knew 
you : depart from me, ye that work iniq- 
uity." Matt. 7: 22, 23. The only safe 
way is to believe the right thing, to do the 
right thing, and that, too, in the right way, 
and then we are safe. This is Jesus' rule, 
and nothing short of it is safe. By this 
rule all people will believe alike, for they 
will believe the same thing, and in the same 
way. By it they will do alike, for they 
will all do the same thing; they will all 
mind the same thing, and will do it in the 
same way. This will make them to be all 
alike, and then they can all have a feast 
together. But then there would be only 
the one church and one people ; it would 
be Christ's glorious church, and the Lord's 
people. But as we now see it the world's 
religious people do not believe alike, do 
not do alike, but rather to the contrary, 
and this is why we oppose the having of 
an open feast. They are not in a condi- 
tion for it. When they are in the proper 
condition for a lovefeast together, other 
things will tell it more than by eating at 
one table. Before I leave this part of the 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 135 

subject I will speak of the influence of 
open feasting. I may have treated this 
thought before, but I call it up in this con- 
nection. 

The professing world, divided as it is, 
does not have the influence in favor of piety 
and holiness it would have if all professing 
bodies were more consistent with their 
claim than they now are. Their divided 
condition with their opposition to one an- 
other, is no light to the world in any sense. 
But the reverse is true, and the power 
which should be in favor of light and truth, 
is now in favor of darkness and error. 
They all claim to love Jesus, but they do 
not all obey his word. They claim also to 
love one another, but they bite and devour 
those of other bodies, and sometimes those 
of their own, and this, to an observing 
world, does not look like love, for blind as 
our race is in other things, they well know 
what love means. To them all it means- 
kindness, long-suffering, gentleness, and 
peace ; and if these fruits be not seen, then 
it is not love, and no claim whatever, by 
toy or all, can change their opinion of it. 
Nor should it be changed, for the fruits of 
God's love are to be seen and felt by those 
who are in the world, not only by those in 
the church relation, but by those outside of 



136 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

it, and it is to be feared that when there is 
no more indication of love among those 
who claim religion, than that of taking a 
bit of bread and a sip of wine together, 
that love does not exist at all. With this 
view of the fruits of religion the world gets 
no light whatever from those who claim to 
have the light. And we must all admit 
that that which is not light is its opposite, 
darkness. "If therefore the light that is 
in thee, be darkness, how great is that 
darkness!" Matt. 6: 23. "Take heed 
therefore that the light which is in thee be 
not darkness. If thy -whole body therefore 
be full of light, having no part dark, the 
whole • shall be full of light, as when the 
bright shining of a candle doth give thee 
light." Luke 11: 35, 36. We want that 
all who claim to love Jesus should let their 
light shine, but let us first get the light 
into ourselves, and soon others will see the 
flame. When all catch it, then is the 
world lighted with the light which is from 
heaven. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 137 



CHAPTER XVII. 

NO GOOD CAN KESULT FROM IT. 

I can not see that any good whatever 
can result from open feasting between 
churches as they now are. If it be said 
that to have love we must cultivate that 
feeling, I fully agree with that sentiment ; 
but my effort has been to show that love 
does not exist, and if it is desired to culti- 
vate this principle, there are many ways in 
which this can be done, and from which 
the most glorious results will follow. I do 
not regard the act of feasting together to 
be a means to cultivate love to each other 
so much as the result of love which does 
already exist, and which has been produced 
in some other way. If this was the proper 
way in which to beget a kind regard for 
others, then we ought always to feast with 
those we love least. But this is not the 
rule at present observed, for the effort 
seems to be to feast most with those who 
are loved most. Love is in this not so 
much an end to a means as a means to an 
end. It was not the blood that brought us 



138 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

love from heaven, but it was the love which 
brought the blood. And so in feasting to- 
gether, it is the happy effect of a feeling 
already enjoyed, or it can not in any sense 
be a Zove-feast. To beget love it should be 
given to those with least love. The reason 
why I can not see that any good can result 
from it is, because I know of none that has 
been shown. If there be any good what- 
ever in the application of this principle, 
namely, the communion between the liberal 
churches, I have not yet seen it. The 
practice has had ample time, I think, to 
have revolutionized the feelings and the re- 
lations of those who have enjoyed it most, 
but up to this time it has been a failure. 
In most things, when a good result is not 
seen and a bad one is feared, men are slow 
to adopt them. And now shall it be differ- 
ent with this? Shall we adopt and favor 
a practice of which no good has yet been 
seen, and of which much evil is feared? If 
we do, it is to treat this matter as we do 
no other. Sentiments thought too liberal 
are not safe to indulge, and the abuse of 
any feeling does far outweigh any good 
which is only expected. 

Nor can I see that any are in any degree 
made happier by open feasting, but if such 
is the fact, I think the pleasure enjoyed in 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 139 

this way to be of short duration, for we see 
things go on about as they did before. Tho 
only difference to be seen is that there is 
somebody and often some unpleasant thing 
talked about of those who partook. Nor 
do we see any more love between churches 
thought to be so liberal, and who thus 
partake together, than we do between 
those who have close communion. I have 
said all the while that love is none too 
great with any, but there is no more of it 
between those who have open feasts than 
with those who have not. And I ask, if 
love between the churches be the object 
sought for, why have the many churches ? 
If the feeling is one, why not have but one 
church, and of course but the one relation ? 
But we are told that "this is to suit the 
fancies of people. People have a variety 
of fancy as to churches, and to be liberal 
we must indulge these fancies." I am as- 
tonished to hear men talk of fancy in truth,, 
or variety in truth. As though truth, that 
never varies, in life or in death, on earth 
or in heaven, should now vary so as to 
adapt itself to the fancies of a thousand 
minds. Is it not strange that the mind of 
Almighty God must assume any shape, sup- 
port any and all theories, in order to suit 
the fancies of a perverted and carnal mind ? 



140 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

It is strange logic to us to hear men talk 
•of love between the many churches and all 
the while favoring a variety and a multi- 
tude of churches for nothing more than to 
humor the fancies of men. And I ask, if 
fancy is to be indulged, and variety in reli- 
gion is sought for, why not have all that is 
possible ? Why have any restraint ? Let 
no two believe alike, think alike, talk alike, 
or act alike, and then we will have this 
feeling of fancy indulged to the full. But 
then what kind of religion would we have ? 
I think we would then have to perfection 
of what we now have a large part, a great 
deal of fancy, but not much holiness, — a 
great deal of it in name, but a very little 
of it in character. The feeling is world- 
wide that men must have some kind of re- 
ligion, and so we have it, but have only a 
little share of its power, and the result is, 
not much of its fruit — I mean the fruit and 
power of the true religion which all claim 
to have, and all should have. And it is 
true that the world has a kind of religion, 
and that, too, with all the variety and fancy 
that is possible under the circumstances. 
But to indulge it further, or to lay it aside, 
in only one thing, and that for the moment, 
as open feasting now offers to do, is not, as 
we believe, for the advantage of any. I do 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 141 

think we would have more piety, holiness, 
if we had more of the mind which is from 
above, and less of our fancy and variety. 
It is the carnal mind that has long ago 
ruined the world, and the effort of revela- 
tion has ever been to induce our race to bo 
less fanciful as to its own mind, and to be 
more and more subject to the divine mind, 
which we speak of as the law of God. This 
is always reasonable, regular, and to be 
subject to it is to enjoy that which is real 
and unchangeable. But it is our fickle, 
unstable mind that is not subject to the 
law of Grod, and indeed can not be, and in 
proportion as it is yet unsubdued, we may 
be assured that the proper change has not 
been made. At this place it is easy to see 
how complete our conversion is, if made at 
all. To allow of a thousand modes of wor- 
ship merely to indulge the fancies of those 
who seek to be religious, is to allow a great 
deal for fancy and not much for truth, and 
is to allow in religion more than is allowed 
in anything else. 

But if others claim the right to their 
opinion of what is right and pleasing, then 
the "Dunkard people" should also have 
theirs, and that is, to have a close com- 
munion, under all circumstances. But if it 
be not our own wish which is to be con- 



142 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

suited, but rather that of others which is 
to be respected, why not first consult the 
wish of the great Jehovah, who has said, 
"Be ye holy, for I am holy." And again, 
why not consult the wish of him who made 
himself of no reputation, and did nothing 
•of his own will, but always to follow the 
will of him that sent him. Let the mind 
&nd life of him who went about doing good 
be in us all, and we will not have the 
variety in everything, and' more especially 
in what we call religion, that we now do. 
But let us all mind the same thing and be 
of the same judgment in this matter, if in 
no other, and then strife, persecution, and 
division will cease. We will then have but 
one church, and it will be Christ's church. 
As it now is, we know that all do not have 
the same mind upon any one thing what- 
ever, and much less that of religion, and 
for that reason alone no good can ever come 
from open communion among professors in 
their present divided and distracted state. 
Open communion will not in any way 
lessen the number of church organizations, 
nor will it in the least purify those already 
formed. If it would prevent the increase 
of churches a word might be said in its 
favor, but it does not prevent this. New 
-churches spring up faster among those who 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 143 

favor open communion than among those 
who do not. And if the churches which 
favor it were purer and better than those 
which oppose it, there would be another 
plea for open feasting. But they are not. 
This systeni winks at and allows of every 
sin. It purifies no one. If it would pre- 
vent the spirit of persecution now so prev- 
alent in the so-called Christian churches, 
we would have still another argument in 
its favor, but the past has shown as much 
or more persecution among those who prac- 
tice open feasting than with those who do 
not. None can claim it otherwise. Or, 
if its effect was to increase love and union 
between the many denominations, and thus 
enable them to turn all their forces against 
the common enemy, then we would have a 
strong argument in its favor. But we do 
not see it thus, for there is no more evidence 
of real love between the churches which 
feast together than with those which do 
not. Or, if those who talk so loudly for 
it were most zealous for the teachings of 
our good Master, then I, too, would favor 
it. But they are not, for it is among this 
class that we hear so much said about non- 
essentials. It is that class which says our 
Lord did not always mean what he said. 
These want some words to mean nothing. 



144 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

As no good has yet resulted from open 
communion, I conclude that with the time 
and chances it has had, that none will ever 
come; for it has had time enough, and no 
good fruit has been seen yet. The fruit 
already seen has been so very corrupt that 
I conclude that the tree upon which it 
grew, viz., open communion, is also a cor- 
rupt tree. "A good tree can not bring 
forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree 
bring forth good fruit." Matt. 7: 16-20. 
In presenting what I have upon this sub- 
ject, I have said little but .what may be 
applied in general to all, and by all those 
churches which favor and practice "close 
communion ;" but I come now to consider 
this subject in its application to us as a 
peculiar people. That we are such a people 
will be admitted at once, when I tell why it 
is that we are such. The Lord's people are 
such, and this relation we claim and wish 
by all proper means to hold. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 145 



CHAPTER XVIII 



SPECIAL REASONS. 



As was said before, I come now to offer 
reasons for close communion which apply 
to and can be urged by the "Dunkard peo- 
ple" in particular. The first which I will 
offer is that of 

BAPTISM, 

as it is held by us as it is not held by many 
others. And the very great difference to 
be seen in the practice of this rite, and 
their non-agreement as to its design and 
importance, are sufficient, we feel, to forbid 
anything like a Christian love-feast, so long 
as those differences are to be seen. I know 
not in what light all of the many churches 
view this rite; but from the manner in 
which some speak of it, I can not think 
that they esteem it very highly. And we- 
know, too, from what they say and from 
what they do, that they do not at all regard 
it as essential to salvation. They seem not 
at all particular whether baptism is had or 
not, or in what manner it is had. In what 
other sense they can view it and practice 
10 



146 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

it, in some form or other, and still hold it 
to be unimportant, is what I do not know. 
What it is held for, or what design it fills, 
that is of so little consequence, but still 
must be held, I know not, and for that 
reason will not say. 

The difference between our people and 
those of others in this matter is, that we do 
hold it, with all the truth, to be important, 
while it would seem that they do not. We 
allow for baptism a place and part in the 
work of human salvation which nothing else 
can fill. And we hold that the word of God 
regards the change of relation indicated by 
the act of baptism, to be an important one, 
and that this change of relation can not be 
secured in any other way than that of being 
"buried with him by baptism into death." 
And our faith is, that "if we have been 
planted together in the likeness of his 
death/ 7 and continue faithful in that rela- 
tion until death, that then "we shall be in 
the likeness of his resurrection." Rom. 6 : 
4, 5. Therefore we hold it to be so very 
important a condition that nothing else can 
fill its place, or give the same relation, and 
for this reason we admit none to member- 
ship and to our lovefeasts, but those who 
have assumed this right relation in the 
right way. We not only hold to the im- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 147 

portance of the thing done, but as well to 
the manner in which it is done, and without 
an exception have but one mode of baptism. 
We believe also in the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, but we concede to none but to God 
the power and the right to administer a 
gift so precious. I speak now altogether 
of the rite of water baptism. To satisfy all 
that water holds an important place in the 
change to the new relation, I cite the words 
of Jesus, John 3 : 5, where we have it thus: 
" Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
can not enter into the. kingdom of God." 
This is positive; and with this view of its 
importance we regard those not thus born 
as not being in the new relation, and there- 
fore not in the kingdom. And although 
some claim that they have the baptism of 
the Spirit, who have not had the baptism 
of water, yet our people in no case admit 
the church relation without the immersion 
of each candidate three times in water. 
We then ask God for the Spirit. Our mode 
of baptism is always by the trine immersion, 
that is, by the dipping of each candidate 
three times under water, or once at the 
naming of each person of the Holy Trinity, 
and that, too, by the forward motion. 
This is, in short, the Brethren's view of 



148 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

it, and I will not stop here to argue the 
subject of baptism, or its mode, but cite 
the reader to the works of my brethren 
Peter Nead, Christian Wise, James Quinter, 
Robert Miller, B. F. Moomaw, J. H. Moore, 
and J. W. Stein, with others, who have all 
treated the subject of baptism as to it de- 
sign, its importance, its history, and its 
mode. However I here remark that history 
gives to this mode of baptism the preced- 
ence of all others ; that no others date back 
further than to A. D. 360; that it is safe 
because it is accepted by all as genuine, 
and is rejected by none; and Jwhile many 
who have received baptism by other modes, 
become uneasy and dissatisfied with the 
mode received, we have yet to hear of any 
one who was uneasy about or dissatisfied 
with his trine immersion. We claim it to 
be apostolic, and for that reason altogether 
safe. The apostles had but one mode of 
baptism; for all the modes now in use, save 
that of trine immersion, have come into 
use long since their day. For these reasons 
we claim to have and to practice the only 
legal mode of baptism in existence, and 
hence feel that to practice open feasting 
would be to legalize any and all the modes 
now in use, to do which would, we believe, 
be inconsistent with scripture, history, and 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 149 

good sense. Some will then say that "we 
look upon all others as unbaptized. I re- 
ply that such is the fact, and as proof that 
we do so regard it, I will say that all ap- 
plicants are, without an exception, baptized 
when received, no matter how or by whom 
received before. Nor are we alone in this 
view of the subject. 

Robert Hall, of England, who died in 
1831, is thus quoted by Howell : "We are," 
says Hall, "compelled to look upon the mass 
of our fellow Christians as unbaptized." 
Hall's Works, Volume 2, page 212. 

Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Bap- 
tism, Part 2, chapter 9, is thus quoted by 
J. M. Pendleton in his "Reasons why I am 
a Baptist," page 188. Wall says": "No 
church ever gave the communion to any 
person before they were baptized. Among 
all the absurdities that ever were held, none 
ever maintained that any person should 
partake of the communion before they were 
baptized." 

Hibbard, in his "Christian Baptism," 
while speaking of the Baptists, says the 
Biptists hold, "Th.it baptism is essential to 
church membership. They have denied 
our baptism, an 1, as unbaptized persons, 
we have been exo-udel from their table. 
That they greatly err in their views of 



150 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Christian baptism, we of course believe. 
But according to their views of baptism 
they certainly are consistent in restricting 
this their communion. 

"We would not be understood as passing 
a judgment of approval upon their course; 
but we say their views of baptism force 
them, upon the ground of strict communion, 
and herein they act upon the same princi- 
ple as other churches : They admit only 
those whom they deem baptized persons, 
to the communion table. Of course they 
must be their judges as to what baptism is. 
It is evident that according to our view 
we can admit them to our communion, but 
with their views of baptism it is equally 
evident that they can never reciprocate the 
courtesy; and the charge of close com- 
munion is no more applicable to the Bap- 
tists than to us, inasmuch as the question 
of church membership is determined by as 
liberal principles as it is with any other 
Protestant churches — so far, I mean, as the 
present subject is concerned, that is, it is 
determined by valid baptism/' — Hibbard's 
Christian Baptism. 

From what I have here quoted from 
others, it will be at once seen that we are 
not the only people who regard the rite of 
baptism as important/ but that others es- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 151 

teem it as highly as we, and that others see 
with us, that to have open communion is to 
at once set aside our consistency with the 
principles held. I am glad to know that 
some see it thus, and to help others to get 
the same impression has been the constant 
effort of the writer. For our people to 
have open communion is to say that bap- 
tism by any mode is non-important, and 
that is to set the whole thing aside ; but 
Jesus says a water-birth must be had. 

Open feasting would say that God has 
near a dozen ways to do one and the same 
thing, and that that thing was one of no 
consequence. It perhaps might do for those 
who treat baptism in the same way, and 
who treat crime in the same way — who re- 
gard it as a mere idle form to take in or to 
turn out, but it will not do for those who 
wish to keep safely the doors of ingress 
and egress. We must know who is in and 
who is out to have a church at all. With 
these views of baptism, the rite of induction 
into the church, we can not do otherwise 
than to hold a strict communion. To 
change the act we must change the thought 
and of course change our faith. 



152 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

THE TAKING OF OATHS. 

There is a difference to be seen among 
professors of religion upon the subject of 
swearing or the taking of oaths. The dif- 
ference seems to be first in what is con- 
sidered an oath, and second, where it is 
taken. If the name of God be called in 
order to confirm or strengthen what is said 
in conversation, the act is called profanity, 
and is condemned by all religious and well- 
bred people, as it indeed should be. It in 
this case is thought to show an irreverence 
for sacred things, no matter whether the 
statement made with the oath be true or 
false. But when the same holy name is 
used on evidence in court, or in business as 
required by law, the habit of swearing is 
then by some justified, and the evidence 
taken, although every word of it may be a 
lie. Why the place where a thing is done 
should make this very apparent difference 
dn the thing which is done, and that, too, 
when place has nothing whatever to do 
with the validity of the statement made, is 
what I do not know. If God's name was 
improperly used at one place, it was so at 
the other. If the man could tell the truth 
without it in one case, he could in the 
other. And if his statement could be be- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 153 

lieved without it in conversation, it could 
also be believed before a court or in busi- 
ness. And again, if the man would tell a 
lie with God's name used with it in the one 
•case, he would do so in the other. And if 
to put this holy name in a man's mouth 
was to make him always tell the truth, we 
should not then fault the practice so much. 
But it does not. We find that men can 
and do tell the truth, both in conversation 
and before the court, without it being linked 
to an oath. We also find that those who 
swear most do not always tell the most 
truth. With these reasons I conclude that 
there is no reason for taking an oath, for 
the man who will tell a lie under a promise 
to tell the truth will also tell a lie under 
•oath. And the man who will tell the truth 
when under oath, can just as well do so 
when under promise. Besides he can do 
no more than to tell the truth when under 
oath. It is the truth, not the oath, which 
makes the statement strong and to be be- 
lieved; and to believe a man's statement 
merely because he had the name of God 
in his mouth is to put a reward on irrever- 
ence and profanity. The law assumes that 
•a man can, and that he does tell the truth 
when he takes an affirmation, if he prefers 
to speak in that way, and for this reason 



154 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

we hold that there is no cause whatever 
why any should swear or take an oath. 

Another reason why a man should not 
swear is because it in every case dishonors 
the holy name used, both in the sight of 
him who takes it and also of them who 
hear it. And it is a disgrace to civilization 
to use the name of God so very often and 
in the manner it is now done. There is no 
class of men from the ruler of the people 
down to the drunken mob, with all the out- 
laws to society, but who use the holy name 
of Heaven's King more freely and with less 
respect than they would use the name of a 
common dog. The name which is above 
every name is thus used in relation to every 
subject and everything, and that, too, in 
every way. And as to the class of relations 
in which it is always used, many are such 
as to disgrace a being of the lowest order. 
But the holy name is there and no better 
use made of it than to trample under foot. 
There can not be the reverence shown to 
him who is worthy to bear that name that 
there should be in and with such a system 
as this, and for that reason we claim that 
the whole system of swearing, both legal 
and illegal, is wrong. 

In support of what I have said upon the 
subject of swearing I quote from "Encyclo- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 155* 

pedia of Eeligious Knowledge/ 7 page 753 r 
and from article, "Lord's name taken in 
vain" "Perhaps there is no sin more* 
common as to the practice, and less thought 
of as to the guilt of it, than this. Nor is 
it thus common with the vulgar only, but 
with those who call themselves wise, hu- 
mane, and moral. They tremble at the- 
idea of murder, theft, adultery, etc., while- 
they forget that the same law which pro- 
hibits the commission of these crimes does 
with] equal force forbid that of profaning 
his name. No man, therefore, whatever 
his sense, ' abilities, or profession may be, 
can be held guiltless, or be exonerated from 
the charge of being a wicked man, while- 
he lives in the habitual violation of this 
part of God's sacred law."- 

In the same article the language of the- 
celebrated and pious Hannah More is 
quoted from Volume 2, page 87, of her 
work on education. It is most tender and 
appropriate to our subject, if considered 
merely in the light of profanity, in which 
I really consider all swearing, but I give 
only the closing thought. She says, when 
speaking of how God's name is used : "His 
name is impiously, is unfeelingly, is un- 
grately singled out as the object of decided 
irreverence, of systematic contempt, of 



156 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

thoughtless levity. His sacred name is 
used indiscriminately to express anger, joy, 
surprise, impatience, and what is almost 
still more unpardonable than all, it is wan- 
tonly used as a mere unmeaning expletive, 
which, being excited by no temptation, can 
have nothing to extenuate it; which, caus- 
ing no emotion, can have nothing to recom- 
mend it, unless it be the pleasure of the 
sin." 

We notice that all writers condemn 
swearing, when it is called profanity by 
custom, but approve of it whenever custom 
will approve it. But it is much to be 
doubted whether the Lord will make the 
same distinction in the kind of oaths we 
use, — will approve of some and disapprove 
of others, as we do. I am surprised, too, 
that any should refer to the Old Testament 
for support to the custom of swearing in 
•any sense, for Jesus calls up that law and 
repeals it, but gives another to govern the 
Christians down to the end of time. He 
treats this subject as he does that of adul- 
tery, and hatred to enemies. He takes 
•away the first, but gives and establishes a 
second. He says : "Ye have heard that it 
hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto 
you, Lore your enemies, bless them that 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 157 

curse you, do good to them that hate you, 
and pray for them which despitefully use 
you, and persecute you." Matt. 5 : 43, 44. 

It is in the same manner that he treats 
the matter of taking oaths. The old custom 
is abolished, but a new one established, and 
that not for the ram-professor, but for the 
Christian, who, to be a Christian, must 
know enough not to be profane in his lan- 
guage without a law to restrict him. We 
for this reason think that Jesus did not 
mean profane swearing, as custom calls it,, 
and it only, but that he meant to restrict 
his people from taking all or any kind of 
oaths. With this view let us read what h& 
says : 

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been 
said by them of old time, Thou shalt not 
forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the 
Lord thine oaths : But I say unto you, 
Swear not at all: neither by heaven; for 
it is God's throne : nor by the earth ; for it 
is his footstool : neither by Jerusalem ; for 
it is the city of thq great King. Neither 
shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou 
canst not make one hair white or black. 
But let your communication be, Yea, yea ; 
Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than 
these cometh of evil." Matt. 5 : 33-37. 

By comparing these directions with the- 



158 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

laws given by Moses, all of which are here 
referred to, it will be seen that every part 
of the former law upon this subject is re- 
pealed, and a commandment given to all 
who will hear him who speaks from heaven, 
to "Swear not at all." And I here remark 
that for men in any way to attempt to set 
this direction aside is to show that they 
have more presumption than faith, and less 
respect than conceit. 

The same thought is repeated by the apos- 
tle James in his epistle, and if there could 
be any doubt in the mind of any as to the 
extent of our Savior's meaning upon this 
subject, James 7 direction in the matter is 
plain enough to take it all away. Hear 
what he says: "But above all things, my 
brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, 
neither by the earth, neither by any other 
oath: but let your yea be yea; and your 
nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." 
James 5: 12. 

I leave this without comment, believing 
that the language is as explicit as can be 
found, and seems to show that the writer 
had some fear that the words of Jesus upon 
this subject might be overlooked, hence the 
very earnest manner that is used to set 
forth this direction for the church. My 
.reason for presenting this subject at such 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 159 

length is, because I know not that any of 
the Brethren have ever given to the public 
our reasons for non-swearing. And as this 
is a matter for us to consider in connection 
with open feasting, I give our reasons first 
for non-swearing, and then offer it as an- 
other reason against open communion. We 
are opposed to the taking of oaths, as has 
been shown, while other churches think it 
a matter of little or no consequence, and so 
do not practice non-swearing. I should 
not say that all regard it thus, for some do 
not ; but I mean to say that all but a few 
of the churches think and say that both 
James and Jesus had reference only to pro- 
fanity, and did not mean the taking of a 
legal oath. 

Now here is the trouble : We as a 
church regard swearing as both useless and 
wicked, while others regard it not only a 
duty, but a privilege as well, allowed them 
by law, and with this view they swear, 
while we do not. In their churches it is 
allowed, while in ours it i3 not; and in an 
open love-feast with, them this distinction 
would be entirely lost sight of, because we 
give to those who do swear all the privileges 
of the church, when we can not do any 
more for the members of the church, who 
do not swear. The command to "do good 



160 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

unto all men, especially unto them who are 
of the household of faith," (Gal. 6 : 10) 
seems to allow of a decided preference in 
the favor of those who belong to the house- 
hold. But in an open feast this preference 
\ would seem to go the other way, for it 
I would give to others more liberty than we 
give to our own. We try in our feast to 
show our preference to those who are of 
the household, and will be happy to show 
at any time the same preference to any and 
to all who will come into the household and 
become one of the family with us. Other- 
wise, we tjiink we can only show this pref- 
erence to and in the family, but can go no 
further. 

THE TREATMENT OF ADULTERY. 

I offer another reason why we can not, 
as a people, favor open feasts, and that is 
the manner in which the sin of adultery 
is treated. This difference of treatment as 
to one and the same crime makes it difficult, 
yea, altogether forbids us to allow of an 
open feast; for this would be to license a 
sin that is now too common everywhere, and 
to the commission of which our own people 
are no exception. It is a shame to all that 
is good, and to all that is civil, that this 
social evil is so prevalent. But it is no 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 161 

the sin which I wish to speak of here. It 
is the treatment of it. I speak only of its 
punishment. 

With some it is regarded as no sin at all, 
and with some it is thought to be no more 
than a common failing and of little conse- 
quence. With these it is indulged, for it is 
not regarded as crime. With others it is 
thought to be an awful sin, but for other 
considerations it is indulged time and again, 
and from year to year. With them it is 
thought to be crime, but receives no pun- 
ishment. With our people the commission 
of this sin is far too frequent, but I believe 
that so far it has in every case been re- 
garded as crime and punished. And it is 
our hope that the present agitation of this 
subject in the councils of our brethren will 
not in any way lead to the indulgence, in 
any case, of a sin so contagious, and sq 
dreadful as to consequences. 

This being the difference between the 
churches in the treatment of the same 
crime, how can we, or any other church, 
maintain purity of the body, if this sin is 
indulged by open communion ? It can not 
be done. And this is not all; for the 
church that will thus license adultery, will 
also indulge the host of sins. 

The church of Rome has been censured 
11 



162 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

and persecuted, because it would grant in- 
dulgences for sin, but it is not the only 
church that has done it, nor all that do it 
yet. There is not a sin on the list but 
what is now in full operation in many oi 
the Protestant churches, and that, too, 
without rebuke. 

I aim not to make the impression that 
there is no sin with us, but I aim to say 
that the effort is. constant to reprove and 
rebuke not only the sin of adultery, but all 
others as well. The sin of adultery, with 
us, has ever been regarded and treated as 
sufficient to debar those who were guilty 
of it from a right to membership, both in 
those who mado application, and in those 
who had enjoyed the church relation. For 
us to admit of open communion is to throw 
this safeguard away, and in proof of this, 
I cite a case at hand. 

Not long since a man was disowned by 
our people for adulterous marriage, and 
afterward he and his present wife went 
to a meeting held by those who favor open 
communion, and 'where the emblems were 
that day taken. After one or more tables 
had been filled and served, and the invi- 
tation was still made for others to come, 
this man and woman went up and partook 
of the emblems from the hand of the min- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 163 

ister, when it was well known that they 
were in adultery, and the man not a mem- 
ber of any church.' Whether the wife held 
a membership with any church or not, I 
know not, but I do know that the same 
body in which this took place had not long 
before refused them a membership. But 
on this occasion they gave them the highest 
favor their church could confer, and that, 
too, when he was a member with none, 
and thought unworthy to be a member 
with any. 

A principle which will allow of a prac- 
tice so loose in morality as this, is a wrong 
principle, and those who claim religion at 
all, and indulge sin in this way, should at 
once examine themselves whether they be in 
the faith or not. To hold this principle, 
and to maintain this practice, is to have an 
open door wide enough for the sins of the 
whole world to come in, and is for that 
reason unsafe. And while we do not look 
upon all professors as being adulterers, and 
sinners of the worst degree, yet we feel free 
to condemn all who are such, whether they 
be in our own body or in others. And 
while the practice of most other churches 
is to wink at and indulge not only adultery, 
but other sins as great, we feel that our 
only safe way is to invite none. We feel, 



164 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

too, that we have a perfect right from 
scripture (see I. Cor. 5th chapter) to forbid 
all who are guilty of the crimes there 
named, and as it is not our place and not 
in our power to make a selection in other 
churches — take some and refuse others, 
therefore we have strict communion, and 
refuse all of other denominations, and quite 
often some of our own. We seek not to 
please men, but to please God, and that 
should please men. We could not make 
the selection from other churches and ex- 
clude the unworthy, because their churches 
do not do it, and when the church is ad- 
mitted, all who belong to it must also be 
received. To allow it at all, we must ad- 
mit all, and this is to admit and feast with 
those in adultery and countenance a pre- 
vailing sin. If this sin be indulged in this 
way, J can not see that it or any other sin 
can be put away. To commune with such 
is to sanction every act and every relation, 
and to allow that which the Bible does not 
allow. 

One command of scripture is to "Be not 
ye therefore partakers with them." Eph. 
5; 7. And another command is, "Lay 
hands suddenly on no man, neither be par- 
taker of other men's sins : keep thyself 
pure. 11 I. Tim. 5: 22. These commands 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 165 

at once forbid the privilege of indulging 
sin, and when it is found it is not to be in- 
dulged, but rebuked. If the sin be an 
open violation of truth, the rebuke is to be 
given " before all, that others also may 
fear." (See I. Tim. 5: 20.) Let me ask, 
how can the sin of adultery be rebuked at 
all, if instead of being rebuked it is in- 
dulged before all? It can not be done; and 
this would seem not to condemn, but to 
legalize and encourage it, but all know it 
needs no encouragement. It is a sin, and 
we should treat it as such, and rebuke it 
wherever it is found, and that too as the 
Word has it, " before all." And there can 
be no better way in which to do this "be- 
fore all," than to forbid the guilty a place 
at the Lord's table. Both members and 
those who are not will soon know what was 
done, and also why it was done. We think 
this a reason for strict communion that is 
proper and feel, too, that none will fault 
us for holding the view, or for putting it 
into practical effect. 

In case any should call for positive proof 
from scripture that open communion be- 
tween churches is not right, and is therein 
forbidden, I answer that I can not give it, 
and for this reason : God never provided 
for more than one church in this matter, 



166 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

and the provision to be made for the multi- 
plicity of churches must be made by others, 
and that, too, without the Word to support 
it. Christ founded but one. I have before 
referred to the 5th chapter of I. Corinthians, 
and I cite it again here in proof of my 
position, and then let all make their own 
application of it. In this chapter we have 
not only the subject of adultery, but other 
sins, condemned, all of which are as prev- 
alent to-day as at any other time, and all 
of which are offered there with also their 
treatment. In the 11th verse the reader 
will notice what provision is made when 
these sins are found in the church. It will 
be seen, too, that this writer provides for 
only the one church — all outside of it "God 
judge th ;•" but inside the church is to judge, 
and we are told how to do it, and how far 
to go. That wicked person is to be put 
away (verse 13), and they are not to keep 
company with him, nor to eat with him 
(verse 11). 

There are many who think this admoni- 
tion refers to the eating of a common meal 
with the fallen one, and it may. If it does, 
here is one form of rebuke not regarded bv 
any as closely as should be done, and as an 
inducement to the full observation of this 
command I will say that those who have 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 167 

seen the effects of this kind of rebuke say- 
to us that its results have always been 
most favorable. If by this rule a common 
meal is withheld from the erring one in 
the company of his brethren and sisters, 
then we have close communion to perfec- 
tion; for if a common meal is denied, then 
it denies him a place at all other tables. 

There are others who think it applies 
only to the Lord's table, and apply it there 
as its proper place. All are agreed that it 
applies to the one table, but all are not 
agreed as to how far they shall go with it. 
But let it apply as far as it may, it excludes 
from the table it does refer to six classes 
of sins, and as many classes of sinners. 
And as sinners are the only class who are 
unworthy of a place at the Lord's table, 
I conclude that this is the table among 
others referred to, and that is to give us 
close communion of the strictest kind. 

Now we come to deal with facts. We 
know that all these sins abound; and we 
know, too, that in many of the surrounding 
churches these sins are indulged, and that 
ithose who are guilty of them partake in 
their feasts, and that, too, without rebuke. 
For us to have open feasts is to indulge 
both the sin and the sinner, and is to say 
that a man can not in any way make him- 



168 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

self unworthy of a place at the Lord's 
table. We do not do so, however, either 
with those in our own church, or those out- 
side of it. 

■ Open communion is a direct violation of 
every commandment in this the fifth chap- 
ter of Corinthians, for there is not an inti- 
mation of indulgence to sin in any form. 
I offer this as an argument from scripture 
against open . communion, and think it ap- 
plies fully to the case in question. To dis- 
regard this safeguard here offered, and to 
indulge the sins here named by open feast- 
ing is to allow all the favor that a sinner 
or Satan himself could ask for. For this 
reason we do not grant it, and we have no 
reason yet to regret that such with us has 
been the practice, which is to encourage 
the right, but to rebuke the wrong. 

WAR. 

It is no doubt very generally known 
where our people are known at all, that we 
as a body are opposed to the bearing of 
arms, and to war. And I do not think it 
necessary to give here our reasons against 
it, for I believe them to be apparent to all 
who will for a moment think of war and 
the fruits of it. It is now not so long since 
the bloody work was active in our own 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 169 

country, nor are there any to say but that 
all or quite all of the nation's present dis- 
tress, financially, socially, and morally, is 
due to the one thing — war. And "while 
such are its effects in this happy country, 
we can only imagine, but not describe its 
results in other nations. All have suffered 
from its effects, but not one has been bene- 
fitted. All nations have tasted of the 
bloody, bitter cup, but none have been 
strengthened, — all have been wrecked by 
its destiuctive power. But it is not my 
object to give here our reasons against war, 
for it is only my aim to show how we treat 
the principle which begets and wages war. 
To those who may wish to investigate the 
•subject further, I invite them to read the 
work of Bro. J. W. Stein, "Christianity 
Incompatible with War" and also "Dia- 
mond on War." 

What we have now to deal with is this: 
Many if not all the so-called popular 
churches uphold the war principle, and are 
among the foremost to engage in war when- 
ever it may come. In peace they are for 
peace, but in war they are for war. It 
being almost cunstant, of course the feeling 
for war is in almost constant exercise, and 
if there be any time when the clash of 
arms is hushed, there is always enough of 



170 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

the principle at work to keep the feeling 
alive and active. Wars may for the time 
cease, but the principle never dies. Its 
spirit lives on, and on. I have before re- 
marked that we were opposed to war, both 
in principle and in practice, and those who 
apply for membership in the brotherhood 
do in each case promise that they will not 
engage in war. And those who have dis- 
regarded this requirement of the church, 
and, as we believe, the Gospel, too, have 
always fallen under censure. To forbid our 
members from going to war, or from apply- 
ing that principle, and then to disown them 
if disobedient, when we invite and commune 
with the many who hold and practice the 
same principle, is for us to hold to one prin- 
ciple and to practice another. It is for us 
to talk for peace and to work for war. It 
is to condemn a principle in our own that 
we approve in others. A more apparent 
inconsistency, I think, could not be shown 
than for us, or any, to act in this way. It 
is, in my opinion, to throw the claim to 
principle and to truth entirely away. 

I fondly hope that while others manifest 
their love and zeal for the cause of Jesus, 
that they will not forget that he was the 
Prince of Peace — that he shed no blood but 
his own, and that was given for his enemies; 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 171 

that his prayers ascended to heaven even* 
for those that spilt his blood ; and while he 
did much through love, he did nothing 
through hate. 

SECRET ORDERS. 

We have three reasons against allowing 
our membership to belong to secret orders,, 
and the same are offered against open com- 
munion, for in many churches those who- 
belong to these orders are indulged without 
censure. And for us to have open feasting 
would be to admit a class not allowed in. 
our own membership. Our reasons against 
all secret societies are, 

1. Because of secrecy, 

2. They are worldly organizations, 

3. They are oath-bound. 

We can not approve of secrecy when 
organized or not organized, because the 
good part, if there be any, should be known; 
to all, and that which is not good should 
not be known at all. 

The second objection is that these orders 
all being worldly organizations, and gov- 
erned altogether by worldly principles,, 
therefore to admit to communion those who« 
are members of such orders is to get more- 
of the world than we now have, and the* 



172 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

relation to them is such as to interfere with 
the relation to the church. 

Our objection to secret orders, because 
they are oath-bound, will be at once under- 
stood when the reader has considered the 
thoughts under the head of swearing. The 
reasons there offered will apply here, and 
so I offer but one here against those socie- 
ties known as oath-bound. 

If those who are members of secret or- 
ders did always have most reverence for 
the name of God and the word of God, 
with most zeal for the worship of his great 
name, then we ought to be still. But as it 
is we do not see any one of these, much less 
all of them, and we therefore condemn the 
whole, because they will take his name, but 
will not take his word. 

TEMPERANCE. 

I come now to offer this as another and 
last special reason against open communion. 
.And while it is granted that other churches 
may favor temperance and oppose intem- 
perance in part, the Brethren oppose it in 
full. For that reason it is offered under 
the head of special reasons, as I can apply 
it thus better than in any other way. 

As a church we are opposed to intemper- 
ance in any or all forms. And we regard 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 17$ 

the admonition to the church at Philippi 
to "Let your moderation be known unto 
all men." (Phil. 4: 5.) to apply with a 
special fitness to those who claim to take 
all of the Master's word. We claim that 
the word temperate, as used in scripture, 
has a general application ; but as now un- 
derstood and applied, it refers to one thing, 
and to it alone, and that is to the use of 
strong drink. We, of course, must accept 
the term " temperance," as at present used, 
and we do, and in that sense it is here used. 
But while many oppose the evil in part, we 
as a body oppose the whole of it, — oppose 
it in full, and regard everything and every 
man engaged in any part of the business, 
connected with the evil, as being a part of 
the whole. We oppose the manufacture,, 
the traffic, and the use of that thing which 
makes man not only as low, but lower than 
the brute. 

I have already spoken of the relations,, 
both to the church and the world, which 
men may hold, and this subject brings us 
back to that again. There are, according 
to the Census of 1870, three hundred and 
forty occupations in the United States,, 
giving employment to more than twelve 
and a half millions of persons. Of this 
list, nearly all are proper tor a Christian to* 



.174 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

-en gage in, but some are not, and to do so, 
-or to be connected therewith, is to make 
his business relation to interfere with his 
-church relation. He in one must render a 
-service to his ruler which he can not render 
ito his God. I will name but two, and these 
-are enough, for the work they are doing, 
and they are both engaged directly in the 
work of intemperance; and, as a hint to 
•the "temperance workers/' I will say that 
to take away any one of the two, is to break 
in pieces the chain that enslaves the nations, 
-and of course to break its power. It is to 
set the captives free. The two occupations 
and the one class directly concerned in the 
work of intemperance are the distiller, the 
vender, and the drinker. The Census of 
1870 gives us of the first class, 2874 ; of the 
second, 11,718; but the drinkers are un- 
numbered. And from a statement recently 
made and published it would appear that 
there are now more than four hundred 
thousand men engaged in the liquor busi- 
ness, or one for every hundred of our pop- 
ulation. The classes named embrace the 
man who makes, the one who sells, and the 
one who drinks this liquid fire; and they 
are all unworthy of a place in any church. 
These are all engaged directly in the evil 
work, and to take away any one of the three 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 175 

is to interrupt the traffic and to destroy 
the business. 

Our people do not allow any of their 
membership to either make or sell strong 
drink, and should any thus engaged make 
application for membership in the church, 
they would in every case be required to 
give up their business, or not come in. Nor 
do we indulge the one who drinks, unless it 
be for a time, in hope that he may reform ; 
but even then he is withheld from the love- 
feast until reformation is made. And if 
this hope be disappointed, as it often is, the 
drunkard is in every case disowned, so that 
we can truly say that not one of those con- 
nected with this evil work of intemperance 
are by us retained in the church or allowed 
to commune. Other churches do not do 
thus, so far as our observation goes, for 
they not only indulge the drinker, but hold 
both seller and maker from year to year, 
and for life. They thus allow that no busi- 
ness whatever can in any way interfere 
with one's religion. For us to hold open 
feasting with surrounding churches, and 
that, too, while they indulge so much of 
the thing which we so severely censure, 
would be to entirely overlook church rule, 
and to meet as brethren again many who 
have been disowned by us, not for drunk- 



176 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

enness alone, but for the host of sin. And 
for this reason, in addition to those already 
shown, we can not and do not do it. I can 
not see why it is that any should ask us to 
hold it thus, for I know of no reason what- 
ever why open feasting should be held. 
There is great reason why Christians should 
all partake of the one broken body ; but to 
do so in order to obtain the life it imparts, 
they must all belong to the one church — 
"my church/' Matt. 16: 18. 

I offer this conclusion to special reasons : 
If any people have any reason for open 
communion, we have many reasons against 
it. If others have, as they think, good 
reasons for close communion, we have very 
good ones. If these find it consistent with 
their faith, we find it most consistent with 
ours. And if they find safety in the guard 
thus set, we find it most, for we find it a 
guard to the truth, and the whole truth. 
This we want, and this we have, and for 
that reason we ask no more. We now feel 
that we are free, and feel too that it is the 
truth that makes us free; and it is with 
the hope, too, that in the end we shall be 
free indeed. John 8 : 32, 36. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 177 



CHAPTER XIX. 

VERY SPECIAL REASONS. 

I have offered what are regarded by us 
as special reasons for close communion, and 
believed, too, to be the same against our 
adopting the open communion. But we 
come now to consider three under one head, 
as they always go together. I said three, 
but should have said four, and it may be 
that there will be even more than this. 
These apply to Dunkard people alone. 
My reasons for presenting it thus are, be- 
cause our love-feasts are peculiar as to 
their mode of observance, and for us to in- 
vite others to partake, and to admit them, 
would be to make confusion on each occa- 
sion. I have before remarked that the feel- 
ing in one and the same church was not 
always as good as it should be, and that to 
talk about love between the different church 
organizations was to talk about something 
which did not exist. Now for us (or for 
any) to admit more than our own is to 
make confusion in the fullest sense, and the 
blessing will not rest upon it, "For God is 
12 



178 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

not the author of confusion, but of peace, 
as in all the churches of the saints." I. 
Cor. 14: 33. "For where envying and 
strife is, there is confusion, and every evil 
work." James 3 l 16. I do not put any 
further comment upon these than to ask 
the reader to apply this standard to the 
present religious world. That will be 
enough to show that love is the feeling 
least enjoyed, and peace the one most sel- 
dom seen. 

In order to present this thought better 
I give to the reader a description of the 
manner in which our love-feasts are held, 
and then it can be at once seen that in- 
termingled communion will not apply. I 
do this cheerfully, .and for two reasons : 
First, because many who may read this 
have never witnessed anything of the kind; 
and, second, because our love-feasts, being 
held as they are, being different in some 
respects from all others, it will be better 
seen by all that although they may not 
favor close or restricted feasting, yet that 
it is most consistent with our practice, and 
also with the truth. We at the time of 
communion, which is always held at night, 
provide a table and a meal, — a supper, to 
which all our membership who are present, 
and in good standing in the church, seat 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 179 

themselves. The brethren are seated to 
one table, or part of it; and the sisters, all 
with a covering on their heads, are seated 
to themselves at another, or in case there 
is but one, then at a part of it, but always 
seated separate and apart from the brother- 
hood. When all is ready and thus seated, 
the scripture upon ^^/-examination is then 
read (the examination upon relations and 
conduct having been had before). The 
scripture usually read upon this occasion is 
the 11th chapter of I. Corinthians, of 
which the whole is generally offered for the 
consideration of the membership, but al- 
ways the latter part. A hymn is then 
sung, and all kneel in prayer. When this 
is done, the basins of water are brought 
in, and the ceremony of feet- washing is be- 
gun. A brother washes his brother's feet, 
and the sisters wash the sisters' feet. 
While this act is being done, a kiss of love 
is passed between the one just washed and 
the one who washed. The washing is con- 
tinued until all are washed. When the 
washing is completed, all are again seated 
to the table, and the Lord's Supper is eaten, 
in memory of the supper at Jerusalem, and 
in anticipation of the marriage supper of 
the Lamb. Luke 12: 37; Eev. 19: 7, 9. 
When the supper is eaten the union kiss is 



180 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

passed from brother to brother and from 
sister to sister, as a pledge of our love un- 
til death. But it is not till these things are 
all done that the emblems are brought 
forth. They being brought in, a' chapter 
treating upon the sufferings of Jesus is 
then read, some remarks made upon it, and 
all arise and return thanks for the bread. 
It is then broken from brother to brother 
till each one has received. But to each 
sister it is broken and given by the officiat- 
ing minister. Our only reason for this is, 
that the women of Jerusalem took no part 
in breaking the body of Jesus, but wept 
and plead that it should not be done. See 
Matt. 27: 19, 55; John 19: 25. When all 
have been served then all partake of it at 
one time. In the same manner do all arise 
and give thanks for the cup; and in the 
same way it is passed from brother to brother, 
and from the minister to each sister, till all 
have partaken. When this is over, a hymn 
is sung, and the assembly is dismissed. 

Should any wish to examine these sub- 
jects, or to know our reasons from scripture 
for thus keeping them, I give the references 
only, but have not space to present the 
arguments. But in case any should wish 
to learn the arguments offered by the 
Brethren upon these subjects, I cite them 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 181 

again to the writings of Pet^r Nead, James 
Quinter, R. H. Miller, J. W. Stein, J. H. 
Moore, and others, who have, in full or in 
part, given the reasons for each rite in par- 
ticular. Upon the subject of the passover 
I call special attention to the work of Bro. 
J. W. Beer, with also the essays upon these 
subjects offered from time to time through 
the Brethren's papers, and by sisters as 
well as brethren. 

The references in scripture offered in 
support of holding our feasts at night, are 
Matt. 26: 20; Mark 14: 17; Luke 22: 
20; John 13: 30; I. Cor. 11: 23. 

For feet-washing, Luke 12: 37; John 
13; Eph. 5: 26; I. Tim. 5: 9, 10; Phil. 
2: 7. 

For the sisters' covering, I. Cor. 11:6- 
13 ; I. Tim. 2:9. 

For the Supper, or feast, John 13 : 4 ; 
Acts 18: 21; I. Cor. 5: 8; 11: 20; Jude 
12; Rev. 19: 7-9. 

For the kiss, Rom. 16 : 16 ; I. Cor. 16 : 
20; II. Cor. 13: 12; I. Thess. 5: 26; L 
Peter 5: 14. 

For the consolation, Rev. 22 : 14. 

It will be observed by those who read, 
and has been witnessed by many who have 
attended on such occasions, that there is 
little if any disorder or confusion among 



182 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

those engaged, and that all remain seated 
at all times, save at the time they wash feet 
and at giving of thanks. All is quiet and 
each one knows what to do, and how to do 
it, and each one does his part, but does no 
more. It is no partial service. The rea- 
son I offer this as a "very special reason" 
against open communion is, because we 
could not admit others to the table with us 
and avoid a degree of inconsistency and 
confusion altogether too great to be seen 
among professors. The inconsistency I 
have all along tried to show, in regard to 
non-agreement in faith, in government, and 
in everything else ; so I here speak only of 
confusion. And I know of no way in which 
to get up a greater degree of it among 
sober people than for us to have open com- 
munion. Some would perhaps take a part 
in some of the services, but would not take 
part in all. Some churches would take 
the feet- washing, but not the kiss; and 
some would take the kiss and not feet- 
washing. Some would take these, but not 
the supper ; and some would take the sup- 
per, but not the others. And while many 
would take the bread and wine, many more 
would take no part in the other three. 
Now, kind reader, do you really think 
that such a service could be held and not 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 183 

have confusion ? I think not, for we know 
that on such occasions 'the rooms are 
crowded to their utmost, and there could be 
no such a thing done without such a state 
of confusion, more like a frolic than a re- 
ligious feast. What good could in any way- 
come from it, none can tell, and why it is 
asked of us, or of any, I do not know. 
Those who would be made happier to see it 
thus, are those, I think, with low views of 
what order is. 

But it is not selfishness that prompts us 
to hold our feasts in this way, or to guard 
them thus. Nor is it because we think 
none others are good enough to feast with 
us ; but it is because we want all to be in 
the right relation and want all to "be 
done decently and in order. " We feel 
this point can not at all be reached, 
unless all belong to the same body, 
believe the same, and do the same. We 
as a people could not be made happier 
here than to have all who seek, the truth 
to know, to come and partake with us. 
But then we want them to first get ready 
for it, and then it is our duty to have them 
come. It is then that they can come and 
they are welcome. When all come into the 
one church, then it is that they can have a 
feast, and if all were willing to hold no 



184 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

other than the true relation to the church 
and to God, then could we hold a real love- 
feast in anticipation of the great feast to be 
had in the end of this world. I think it 
plain to all that we as a people do not seek 
to please men, nor ourselves, but to please 
God, and not in one thing, but in all things. 

But even when we seek it most 
We're far beneath the price we cost. 

"For even Christ pleased not himself." 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 185 



CHAPTER XX. 

CONCLUSION. 

I have frequently spoken of confusion 
as the fruit direct of such a course, and I 
do not think I have at all overrated the 
subject. I now pass in a hasty review over 
it, and then leave for the reader to enjoy 
his own reflections. But while I claim 
that confusion is a fruit from such a course, 
I think it not all which will follow. In my 
mind open communion with present feeling 
and apparent results is to desecrate that 
which should be held most sacred. None, 
with it, can love the rite so well. It is 
known where we as a people are known at 
all, that we hold as doctrines of the church, 
and of the Bible as well, that faith in God, 
repentance in full, baptism by trine immer- 
sion for the remission of past sins, are es- 
sential to membership in Christ's church; 
that Christ did, to his people, forbid war, 
swearing, adultery, and all the host of sin ; 
that he has marked out for his people some 
duties as plainly as words can make them ; 
and that we as a people try to obey each 



186 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

and all of these, while a large part of 
our Savior's word is by other professors 
passed by unheeded. Now, knowing these 
facts, and knowing also that no apparent 
good has resulted to those who have held 
free communion most, can any man with 
reason ask of us to hold open communion 
with any one, or with all the churches sur- 
rounding us ? Has any one a right to ex- 
pect it of us? I think none should ask it 
or expect it, and for these reasons think 
the demand, when made of our people, to 
be unreasonable. Again : Could any one 
feel edified in the least to either partake 
with us, without first obtaining a member- 
ship, or to see us partake with others, when 
their faith and practice are in the condition 
they are? No one is edified without full 
agreement. Can any one feel glad, or bet- 
ter, to know that the professed religious 
world agree in only one thing, and that not 
a matter of faith, and then upon it, and no 
more, claim to hold a love-feast in union, 
when such a thing is nowhere seen? It 
can not be that those who engage in it 
directly, or those who are but lookers-on, 
should feel the better to see it thus ; and 
therefore I again say, it is to desecrate the 
Lord's Supper and trail his mantle in the 
dust. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 187 

Every man may admit that Christians 
might hold a social feast with one another, 
but their present divided and distracted 
condition does most emphatically forbid a 
religious one, and most especially when we- 
would call it the Lord's Supper, and a love- 
feast. 

The next thought is that open com- 
munion between ours and other churches 
is impossible, and for this reason : They 
always hold their feast in day-time, while- 
we hold ours at night. And as these two* 
points never come together, we can not all 
partake at the same table, and at one and 
the same time. One's feast will be over 
before the other begins. 

I now come to the close, but do not ieel 
that the subject is at all exhausted. Neither 
do I feel that all will be convinced that we- 
are right in this matter. I might still offer- 
other reasons for close communion, but for 
the present will desist. I will, however,, 
name one not yet presented, and leave it 
then without argument. It is that of Apos- 
tolic Succession, which in the eyes of some- 
appears to be of so much importance. We, 
however, do not claim it by direct line, and 
do also very much doubt the claims of others, 
as to this rite; but we hold that those, and 
they alone, are apostolic who have the 



188 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

character of apostles, and do all of the 
will ot God, as the apostles did, let them be 
who they may. We believe with Mr. Buck, 
that it is " impossible to prove that there is 
•now upon earth any one person who is a 
legal successor to the apostles." And I 
merely name this as another reason why 
we should not have an open communion; 
for many claim to have come down in a 
direct line from the apostles. But we do 
not claim this, and think that those who 
do the will of God are the rightful suc- 
cessors to the apostles. Therefore we feel 
that we are not of them who claim this 
-succession in regular line, and we do not 
and should not partake with them of what 
they assert came to them by regular suc- 
cession. We notice that those Protestants 
who favor open feasting, claim apostolic 
•succession, and also those who claim the 
latter always favor open feasting. We are 
mot of that line. 

It has no doubt been noticed before this 
time that I speak of others partaking with 
us, and of this only. I did this to meet 
the charge so often made against us, and 
will now only refer to the other, that of our 
people partaking at others 1 feasts. We op- 
pose it as we do the other, and I feel that 
•every argument will apply to this, as well 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 189* 

as to the other. I offer here but two rea- 
sons against this, and then leave it. I 
think it needs no more. 

1. There is no reason for it, and for 
that cause there can be no need of it. AH 
of our people can have, if they wish, an 
opportunity to commemorate the whole ex- 
ample of our Lord, if they only seek it, and 
that, too, when there are no more than two 
or three to meet in his name. Matt. 18: 20.. 
There is no excuse to give. 

2. It is to do what our people have no 
faith in, and therefore to them it is wrong. 
11 For whatsoever is not of faith is sin"' 
Rom. 14 : 23. It is also contrary to their 
faith, for no others take all that our people- 
do, nor do any others take it as we do, or as 
Jesus did ; therefore for our people to par- 
take with others at their feasts, is to show 
that we believe a part of a thing is as good 
as the whole of it. For our people to take 
such a step is to leap the fence from the 
inside, when from the outside it is alto- 
gether impassable, unless we come in 
through the door. John 10: 9. In fact 
this is to accept from others that which wo 
with even a small degree of consistency, 
can never hope to return. To return it i& 
to lose our consistency at once. 

. I have opposed open feasting thus strong- 



190 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

ly because I feel that it sets aside every 
relation, removes every guard, is without 
Temedy a hot-bed of selfishness, and throws 
at once every doctrine, whether true or 
false, into one confused heap. It is the 
Babel of religions, the mass of creeds. 
'Reflections might very properly be pre- 
sented, but I leave for the reader to do that 
'part, trusting that the word of God will 
receive its full share; but the writer asks 
no indulgence for his thoughts any further 
than where the truth has been given. But 
that far he does ask the reader to indulge 
him. Truth will injure no one. I wish, 
however, to offer one suggestion to our 
brotherhood in addition to what I have al- 
ready said. It is this : We, as a body, 
favor close communion, and we, as a body, 
also think that we have the truth. This, 
-when we do have it, is safe in our hands so 
long as our body does not make one of two 
-changes, to wit : does not adopt an open 
<vommunion or a salaried ministry. I do 
not offer these as an appeal to your weak- 
ness, but to your intelligence and sound 
judgment. To have one of these is to get 
the other. To adopt an open communion 
•is to get from other churches little or 
^nothing to aid us, but much to hinder ; and 
to adopt a salaried ministry is to do very 



CEOSE COMMUNION. 191 

much the same. It is to open a door for 
self to come into high places, and to 
make poor men and women feel that they 
are not wanted. To adopt a salaried min- 
istry is to place the church in the hands of 
a few, who care more for the fleece than 
for the flock ; who work less for souls than 
for their wages, and who will in the end 
concede any principle, and give up the 
essence to increase the bulk. Such will 
always seek the most pay for the least 
work; give up one practice after another, 
as others have done, but never lessen their 
wages, and will in time take every guard 
away, save that of the purse, — will do 
much to enlarge its name and its number, 
but not much for its purity or its peace, 
and in this condition its holiness will flee, 
its power will die, and its glory will depart. 
I of course do not oppose giving aid or 
support to those who devote all or much 
of their time to the Word, and also those 
in need, but I do oppose paying a man for 
his idleness simply because he is a preacher. 
This makes money a key to the church and 
a hinge to the truth. It not unfrequently 
turns the eye and seals the mouth of the 
minister, but if a man preaches for the love 
of the truth, he is very apt to let it all 
come. My brethren, " Preach the Word/' 



192 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

and let us "bear one another s burdens, 
and so fulfill the law of Christ." Gal. 6 : 
2. 

And now, kind reader, let it not be so 
much a question as to who is liberal, and 
who is not, as it is to feel whether or not 
we are getting ready for that great and 
grand marriage feast of the* Lamb, to be 
held at the close of time, and when man 
redeemed shall be guests at the table, an- 
gels lookers-on, and Christ, the slain, to 
be the minister to come forth and serve. 
"Therefore be ye also ready; for in such 
an hour as ye think not, the Son of man 
cometh." Matt. 24: 44; Luke 12: 37-40. 

THE END. 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pr< 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxidi 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnoloi 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERV 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 1606< 
(724)779-2111 



